Parents' Work and Family Economic Well-Being

^Pr^ep^ar^{ed f}^o^r^M^e^m^b^ers^an^d^Com^mⁱ^t^t^ees^of^C^ong^r^e^ss

Family and work structure most Americans’ lives. Work provides the principal means by which
most families support themselves, and public policies directed at low-income families with
children have generally attempted to encourage and support work. Family structure also has been
a focus of public policy because an increasing number of children live with a single parent, and
poverty rates for such children are much higher than for those in married-couple families.
Families with children, regardless of marital status, are at greater risk of poverty, with child
poverty rates higher than those for either nonaged or aged adults.
Based on nuclear family income in 2004, 17.1% of families with children had total incomes
below the poverty line; 21.5% had incomes of less than 125% of the poverty line (poor or near-
poor); and 34% had incomes of less than 200% of poverty (low-income). Most low-income
families had a parent who worked during the year.
Many parents work at jobs that produce low incomes for their families. In 2004, 13% of parents
worked at a wage rate that would have produced below-poverty income for a family of three, and
45% of parents worked at a wage rate that would have produced incomes below 200% of the
poverty level, even assuming full-year, full-time work—a level designated as low-income in this
report. Thus, families with children headed by a single parent—with only one potential earner—
are more likely to be poor than those headed by a married couple. However, married couples with
children and one working parent sometimes struggle to attain even a modest income above 200%
of poverty; it often takes both parents working for a family to exceed low-income levels.
Moreover, for many families, if one parent’s earnings are lost, the economic status of many
married-couple families would suffer.
Parents’ characteristics (e.g., education and work experience) and the occupations in which they
are employed affect wage rates, and therefore the possibility that a family is poor or low-income.
Those with lower levels of educational attainment are more likely to earn low wages and be in
low-income families. We estimate that 17% of working parents with just a high school diploma
earn wages that are too low to support a family of three at the poverty line—assuming full-time,
full-year work—and 60% would be unable to support such a family at twice that level. Among
working parents with a bachelor’s degree, only about 6% earn wages too low to support a family
of three at the poverty line, but 24% lack the earnings capacity to support such a family at twice
the poverty line. Additionally, younger parents typically earn less than older parents, who have
had more time to accumulate work experience. This puts the families of young parents, who tend
to have young children, particularly at risk for poverty and low income.
Annual earnings and economic status also depend on number of hours worked per week and the
number of weeks worked during the year. In married-couple families, strong attachment to the
workforce of both parents is associated with higher income levels. However, among poor
married-couple families, only half of all poor families had one earner working full-time all year.
This report will not be updated.

Introduc tion ..................................................................................................................................... 1
About This Report.....................................................................................................................1
How We Define Families..........................................................................................................2
How We Treat Income...............................................................................................................3
Family Income and Poverty Status..................................................................................................4
Parents’ Work and Family Income Status..................................................................................6
Parents’ Wages, Job Attachment, and Family Earnings Adequacy..................................................8
Wage Rates Relative to Family Poverty Income Levels...........................................................8
Factors Affecting the Determination of Wages.......................................................................10
Parents’ Wages and Educational Attainment......................................................................11
Wage Rates by Parents’ Age.............................................................................................13
Parents’ Age and Poverty Status by Family Type.............................................................17
Parents’ Wages by Occupation................................................................................................19
Parents’ Work During the Year................................................................................................23
Parents’ Annual Hours Worked.........................................................................................23
Weeks Worked and Work Schedules by Family Type.......................................................24
Economic Vulnerabilities and Some Policy Issues........................................................................27
Figure 1. Nuclear Family Income Relative to Poverty Among Families with Children, by
Family Type, 2004........................................................................................................................5
Figure 2. Composition of Nuclear Families with Children, by Family Type and Income
Relative to Poverty, 2004.............................................................................................................6
Figure 3. Earnings and Income Relative to Poverty for Married-Couple and Mother-Only
Families with Children, 2004.......................................................................................................7
Figure 4. Hourly Earnings of Working Parents, by Level of Educational Attainment, 2004........12
Figure 5. Parents’ Earnings Capacity by Level of Education, 2004 (Capacity to Support a
Family of Three Based on Full-Time Full-Year Work at Parents’ Wage Rate)..........................14
Figure 6. Hourly Earnings¹ Distribution, by Parent’s Age,² Married Couples with
Children, 2004............................................................................................................................15
Figure 7. Hourly Earnings¹ Distribution by Mother’s Age, Mother-Only Families, 2004............16
Figure 8. Earnings Capacity by Parents’ Age, 2004 (Capacity to Support a Family of
Three Based on Full-Time Full-Year Work at Parents’ Wage Rate)...........................................17
Figure 9. Nuclear Family Income Relative to Poverty by Parent’s Age, Married-Couple
Families with Children, 2004.....................................................................................................18
Figure 10. Nuclear Family Income Relative to Poverty by Mother’s Age, Mother-Only
Families with Children, 2004.....................................................................................................19
Figure 11. Percent of Parents with Hourly Earnings Below 100% and 200% of Poverty
(Based on the Poverty Threshold for a Married Couple with One Child), by Selected
Occupations, March 2005..........................................................................................................22

Figure 12. Parents’ Job Attachment: Married Couples and Lone Mothers, 2004..........................24
Figure 13. Principal Earner’s Work Status in Married-Couple Families with Children, By
Earnings Relative to Poverty: 2004............................................................................................25
Figure 14. Nuclear Family Poverty Status Based on Parents’ Earnings Alone, by Parents’
Job Attachment: Married-Couple Families, 2004......................................................................26
Figure 15. Work Status of Lone Mothers......................................................................................27
Figure A-1. Family/Household Living Arrangements Among Families with Children,
2004 ............................................................................................................................................ 33
Figure A-2. Poverty Status of Lone-Mother Families by Family/Household Living
Arrangement and Poverty Income Definition, 2004..................................................................34
Table 1. Annual Poverty Income Thresholds and Hourly Poverty Wage Rate (Full-Time
Hourly Equivalents), by Family Type and Number of Children: 2004........................................9
Table 2. Median Hourly Wage of Employed Parents in Selected Occupations, by Full-^a
Time Hourly Wage Equivalent Relative to Poverty for a Benchmark Family of Three,
March 2005................................................................................................................................20
Table 3. Typology of Selected Social Policies that Address the Economic Vulnerabilities
and Security of Families with Children......................................................................................31
Table B-1. Family/Household Living Arrangements Among Families with Children, 2004........36
Table B-2. Nuclear Family Income Relative to Poverty Among Families with Children,
by Family Type, 2004.................................................................................................................36
Table B-3. Earnings and Income Relative to Poverty based on Income Definition, Among
Families with Children, 2004.....................................................................................................38
Table B-4. Hourly Earnings of Working Parents, by Parents’ Level of Educational
Attainment, 2004........................................................................................................................40
Table B-5. Hourly Earnings^a Distribution, by Parent’s Age,^b 2004...............................................40
Table B-6. Hours Worked During the Year by Fathers and Mothers, by Family Type, 2004........42
Table B-7. Annual Hours Worked During the Year by Fathers and Mothers in Married-
Couple Families, 2004................................................................................................................42
Table B-8. Parent’s Earnings Relative to Poverty, by Parent’s Work Attachment During
the Year and Family Type, 2004.................................................................................................44
Table B-9. Nuclear Family Poverty Status Based on Parents’ Earnings And Parents’ Job
Attachment: Married-Couple Families, 2004.............................................................................47
Table B-10. Nuclear Family Income Relative to Poverty by Parent’s Age,^a by Family
Type, 2004..................................................................................................................................48

Appendix A. Family Living Arrangements—Effects on Income and Poverty
Measurement .................................................................................................................... .......... 32
Appendix B. Data Tables...............................................................................................................36
Author Contact Information..........................................................................................................51

Family and work structure most Americans’ lives. Work provides the principal means by which
most families support themselves, and public policies directed at low-income families with
children have generally attempted to encourage and support work. Family structure also has
become a focus of public policy since an increasing number of children live with a single parent,
and poverty rates for such children are much higher than for those in married-couple families.
Families with children, regardless of marital status, are at risk of poverty; child poverty rates are ¹
higher than those for the aged or nonaged adults. Moreover, research has shown that poverty has
negative consequences on a child’s development, which could affect the child’s life chances as an ²
adult.
This report examines the cash income and poverty status of families with children. The report
specifically looks at the role parents play in supporting their families through work, with a focus
on the adequacy of parental earnings. It examines parents’ effectiveness as breadwinners, and
seeks to address such questions as:
• How well are American families with children doing? How many families are
poor, and how many are poor in spite of parents’ work? If not poor, how many
are near poor, or just getting by?
• Is the full-time work of one parent sufficient to support a family, or must other
family members, most notably a spouse, also work to attain a modest level of
income security relative to basic needs?
• Which categories of families are particularly struggling? Could they increase
their income security by working more? How many families, while getting by,
would be economically vulnerable if they lost a breadwinner’s income or had an
additional child?
The report presents data on income and poverty status of families with children; looks at parents’
wages relative to poverty and factors affecting wages, including parents’ education level, age, and
occupation; and examines the amount of work provided by parents and the relationship of job
attachment to earnings adequacy. The report concludes by highlighting those families most
vulnerable to poverty or low income based on parents’ earnings, and briefly discusses public
policies and government programs most relevant to those families.
Our analysis is based primarily on data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Annual Social and
Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey (CPS/ASEC) for 2005. The survey
collects information on family composition at the time of the survey (February through April of
2005) and income and labor force participation in the previous year (i.e., 2004). While shedding
much light on the economic status of families with children, the CPS cannot address certain

¹^For^a^de^s^c^rⁱ^ptioⁿ^of^c^h^ild^pov^e^r^t^y^{, s}^e^e^C^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^L³²⁶⁸^2,^C^h^il^dreⁿⁱⁿ^Pov^e^r^ty^{: Pr}^of^ile^{, Tr}^eⁿ^ds^,^and^I^s^s^u^e^s^{, by}
^Ve^e^B^u^r^k^e^,^T^hom^a^s^G^a^be^{, a}^{nd G}^e^ne^Fa^lk^.
²^Se^e^D^unc^aⁿ^{, G}^r^e^g^J^{., a}^{nd J}^e^a^nne^B^r^ook^s^-^G^{unn, e}^d^.^C^o^ns^e^que^nc^e^s^{of G}^r^owⁱ^{ng U}^p^P^oor^{. R}^u^sse^{ll Sa}^g^e^Fou^nda^ti^on^,
¹⁹⁹^7.

questions, particularly those relating to compensation other than earnings, such as sick and/or
family leave, or other benefits, such as health and retirement benefits.
The major findings of the analysis in this report are:
• Based on nuclear family income, an estimated 6.8 million families with children
were poor in 2004, accounting for 17.1% of families headed by a parent with one
or more children. At an income standard of twice the poverty line, deemed to be
“low-income” in this report, 14.4 million families with children qualified as low-
income, accounting for 36.4% of all families with children.
• Many parents work at jobs with wage rates that translate into low incomes for
their families. In 2004, an estimated 13% of all parents worked at a wage rate
that would have produced below-poverty income (for a family of three) even if
they worked full-time, all year; an estimated 45% of all parents worked at a wage
rate that would have produced incomes of less than 200% of poverty.
• In married-couple families with children, it often takes the work of both parents
to earn a modest income. In 2004, almost 40% of all married-couple families
with children would have had incomes equal to less than 200% of the poverty
threshold, based on the primary worker’s earnings.
• Many single-parent families, having only one earner, have earnings that leave the
family either poor or near poor. In 2004, more than half of mother-only families
would have been poor based on the mother’s earnings alone; more than three-
quarters of these mothers had earnings that were less than 200% of the poverty
threshold.
• Our economy has a division of labor and specialization. Some occupations pay
relatively low wages, and a substantial number of parents are employed in these
occupations. For example, in March 2005, 1.2 million parents worked as
“cashiers,” an occupation with a median wage of $8.00 an hour. This wage rate
would produce an income of less than 125% of poverty for a family of three.
• Parents’ earnings depend on many factors, the most prominent being their level
of educational attainment. Those with college degrees earn more than those
without them.
• Another factor affecting parents’ earnings is their age—older workers who have
had more time to acquire on-the-job experience and job skills are paid higher
wages than less experienced, younger workers. This has important implications
for parents in their 20s and early 30s (a period when many families are formed
and people commonly have children), who earn less than older parents.
In this report, we define families somewhat differently than the Census Bureau in its family
income and poverty measures. Under the official Census Bureau measures, all persons related by
blood, marriage, or adoption living in the same household (i.e., living quarters) comprise a family.
As such, a married couple or a single parent with dependent (biological or adopted) children in
their household constitutes a family, but so do more complex households containing other family
members, such as grandparents, aunts and uncles, nephews, nieces, cousins, and grandchildren.

We employ a more restrictive definition of family than that used by the Census Bureau because
we wish to gauge parents’ effectiveness in providing for their immediate family’s needs—that is,
the needs of the parent or parents (if a spouse is present) and their dependent children. For this
purpose, we define families as units composed of married couples or single parents with at least
one child under the age of 18 (i.e., minor children). All minor children and all adult children
living in the household are included in the family unit unless those children have a child of their
own, or are married with a spouse residing in the household. In such cases, where a child or
another relative who has a child lives in the household, those subfamily units are included in the
analysis but are identified as separate family units. The family units constructed through this
process are identified as “nuclear families,” which are at times identical to the Census Bureau’s
definition of family, but in more complex family households are a subset of the Census Bureau’s
definition. (See Appendix A for a discussion of family living arrangements and treatment of
income in defining poverty.)
As noted above, we define nuclear families as the basic unit of analysis in this report. Much of
our analysis compares family income, or components of family income (e.g., parents’ earned
income), relative to Census Bureau poverty income thresholds. We use Census Bureau poverty
thresholds as a measure of families’ basic needs. These poverty thresholds vary by family size
and composition (e.g., number of related children under the age of 18) and are the most often ³
used standard for measuring basic income needs.
In our analysis, we examine nuclear family income and poverty status based on the unit’s income
compared to poverty thresholds that reflect the unit’s size and composition. This is because, as
stated above, we are trying to gauge parents’ effectiveness in meeting their immediate family’s
income needs. Unless otherwise stated, in cases where there are extended family members and/or
related subfamily units present in the household, their income and needs are excluded from the
nuclear family income and poverty definitions used in this report. However, when reference is
made to the “official Census Bureau income and poverty measure,” the income and needs of
extended family members are included.
In this report, we construct income to poverty ratios by dividing the family’s earnings or income
by the applicable poverty threshold, based on the family’s size and composition. A family with
income below 1.00 times the poverty line is considered poor. We also assess parents’ earnings and
family income at other income standards. For example, we identify families with income below

1.25 times the poverty line as “near poor,” below 1.5 times poverty as “economically fragile,”

and below 2 times poverty as “low-income.” These labels, “near poor, economically fragile, and
low-income,” are used to facilitate the narrative and presentation and should not be construed as
official government definitions or designations of relative income adequacy. The body of the
report focuses primarily on married-couple families and families headed by lone mothers, with
only limited discussion of lone-father families, in large part due to their comparatively small
numbers. However, data for all three family types are presented in a data appendix (Appendix B).

³^Iⁿ²⁰^04,^f^o^r^e^x^am^ple^,^the^pov^e^r^t^y^thr^e^s^{hold f}^o^r^a^f^a^mⁱ^l^y^of^thr^e^e^,^c^o^m^pos^e^d^of^tw^{o pa}^r^e^nts^a^nd^one^c^h^ild^{, w}^a^s
^$15^,2^05.^Pov^e^rt^y^thre^sholds^a^r^e^low^e^r^f^o^{r sm}^a^lle^{r fa}^m^ilie^{s a}^{nd g}^r^e^a^te^{r f}^o^{r la}^rg^e^r^f^a^m^ilie^{s. For e}^x^a^m^ple^,ⁱⁿ²⁰⁰⁴^{, t}^h^e
^pov^e^r^ty^thr^e^s^{hold f}^o^r^a^m^a^r^rⁱ^e^d^c^oup^le^w^{ith tw}^{o c}^h^ildr^e^{n (}^f^am^il^y^of^f^our⁾^w^a^s^$19,1⁵⁷^,^aⁿ^{d f}^o^r^a^sⁱⁿ^g^l^e^pa^r^e^{nt w}^{ith one}
^c^h^ild,^$^13,⁰²^0.

Under the definition of nuclear family poverty
used throughout much of this report, in 2004, ^{Under our definition of}^{nuclear family poverty}^{, in 20}^{04, an}^{estimated 6.8 million famil}^{ies wit}^{h children we}^{re poor,}
an estimated 6.8 million families with children ^{accounting for}^17.1^{% of n}^{uclear f}^amilies,^{or family units}
were poor, accounting for 17.1% of nuclear ^{composed of just pare}^{nts a}^{nd the}^{ir dependent}^children.
families, or family units composed of just ^{Under the of}^{ficial Census Bur}^eau^{poverty definition,}
parents and their dependent children. In all, ^{taking other family mem}^{bers into}^{account, both}^{in term}^s
we estimate there were approximately 39.7 ^{of their income and}^{needs, reduc}^{es the}^num^{ber of}^poor^{families with children to an estim}^{ated 5.9 million, and}
million nuclear family units with children in ^{their poverty}^{rate to 1}^4.9%.

2004. Most of these families (31.6 million, or
80%) live in independent households, with no
other family members or other unrelated household members. Under the official Census Bureau
poverty definition, taking other family members into account, both in terms of their income and
needs, reduces the number of poor families with children to an estimated 5.9 million, and their
poverty rate to 14.9%.
Figure 1 shows families with children by their incomes, relative to the poverty line. The lines
represent the cumulative percentage of families with children with incomes below a specified
level, by family type. The labeled brackets in the figure indicate the range at which families are
considered poor (below 100% of poverty), poor or near poor (below 125% of poverty),
economically fragile (below 150% of poverty), or low-income (below 200% of poverty). The line
for all families shows that 17.1% of families with children have nuclear family incomes below
100% of poverty. About one-fifth of all families with children (21.5%) were either poor or near
poor (with incomes below 125% of poverty); and well over one-third (36.4%) were low-income
(i.e., had incomes below twice the poverty line).
Most children live in families headed by either a married couple or a single mother. It is well
known that the likelihood that a child will be impoverished depends greatly on which of these two
family types he or she lives in. In 2004, just over two-fifths (41.8%) of nuclear families with
children headed by a single mother were poor, while only 7.1% of families with children headed
by a married couple were poor. Over two-thirds of mother-only families (68.8%) had incomes
below twice the poverty line, while just over one-fifth of married-couple families with children
(22.5%) fell within this low-income category.

Figure 1. Nuclear Family Income Relative to Poverty Among Families with Children,
by Family Type, 2004
Though the likelihood that a family with children will be poor is much greater for those headed
by a single mother than those headed by a married couple, married couples with children account
for a nontrivial share of poor and low-income families with children. Figure 2 shows that, in
2004, more than one-in-four poor families with children (27.8%) were headed by a married
couple, while married couples accounted for more than four of every ten (41.8%) low-income
families with children. Being headed by a married couple is not sufficient for a family with
children to escape poverty or low income status. In 2004, about 6 million (22.5%) married-couple ⁴
families with children were low-income, having incomes below twice the poverty line.

⁴^S^ee^Fⁱ^g^u^{re 1}^,^abo^v^e,^an^d^Ta^b^l^{e B}^-²ⁱⁿ^A^ppeⁿ^dⁱ^x^B^.

Figure 2. Composition of Nuclear Families with Children, by Family Type and
Income Relative to Poverty, 2004
Earnings are the primary means by which most parents support their families. In 2004, 92% of
families with children had at least one parent with earnings. In married-couple families, the
earnings of a single breadwinner may provide income deemed by the couple to be sufficient. In
other cases, both parents may choose to work to improve the family’s economic standard of
living. For families headed by single parents, choices between work and family obligations may
be more difficult.
In what follows, we compare family income and components of family income to poverty in
several ways. At times, we count only the primary earner’s earnings against the family’s poverty
threshold to gauge the effect of one parent’s labor market engagement in providing for his/her
family’s needs. To this measure, we separately add earnings of a second parent, if present, to
judge the effect of combining the labor income of both parents in supporting their family. In
addition to parents’ earnings, in a separate step we add all other sources of cash income in the
immediate (i.e., nuclear) family to provide a fuller assessment of their level of economic well-
being. In a subsequent final step, the income and needs of extended family members living in the
household are included in the assessment of family income and poverty status.
Considering earnings alone, of course, ignores the impact of other forms of income—particularly
government transfer payments such as food stamps and the refundable Earned Income Tax Credit
(EITC)—on parents’ behavior and family economic well-being. Since the focus of this report is
on low-income families with children, the impact of these other forms of income on economic
well-being is obviously important. Considering the effect of earnings alone on family poverty
status addresses the question: “What would the economic well-being of families with children be

if they relied only on their income from work and received no other income, including no ⁵
government help?”
Figure 3 shows the role of parents’ earnings and other income relative to the poverty threshold by
family type. In 2004, more than half (52.6%) of families with children headed by a single mother
would have been poor based on her earnings alone. Other income sources, such as alimony and
child support, social insurance payments (e.g., social security), and government cash assistance,
reduces the poverty rate of these families to 41.8%. Approximately one-in-four families headed
by lone mothers live in household settings with extended family members (see Appendix A). If
the income and needs of these additional family members is factored in, the poverty rate of lone-
mother families drops to 35.0%—their official poverty rate.
Figure 3. Earnings and Income Relative to Poverty for Married-Couple and Mother-
Only Families with Children, 2004
The inability of single mothers to provide their families with a basic—let alone modest—level of
income security may be due to low wages, few hours worked, or a combination of the two. When
only full-time, full-year working single mothers are considered, 23% are unable to provide a
standard of living above poverty based on their earnings alone; 33% are unable to secure an
earnings-based standard of living that is higher than near-poverty; and 62% are unable to attain a
modest earnings-based level of income security above twice the poverty line (not shown in
figure). It is unlikely that these mothers can work more, as they already are fully engaged in
market-based work. As a single mother, there may be little time for in-home production (i.e.,
preparing meals, doing laundry, cleaning), if other family members are not available to chip in,

⁵^T^h^is^is^a^“^s^ta^tic^”^aⁿ^a^l^y^s^is^{, a}^{nd d}^o^e^s^{not c}^o^ns^ide^r^t^h^e^e^f^f^e^c^t^s^of^g^ove^rⁿ^m^e^{nt polic}^ie^s^onⁱⁿ^divⁱ^d^u^a^l^s^’^or^fⁱ^r^m^s^’^be^ha^vⁱ^or
^tha^t^mⁱ^g^h^{t a}^f^f^e^c^t^la^bor^s^u^pply^or^w^a^g^e^s^.

and income may be limited to hire out these activities. Additionally, children must be cared for
and nurtured. Low-cost or free child care (e.g. provided by a relative) may be essential for these
mothers to work to support their families.
Among married-couple families with children, the poverty rate based on the earnings of the ⁶
primary earner alone is estimated at 12.9%. In the majority of these families (77%), the husband
is the primary earner (not shown in figure). When the earnings of both parents are considered,
the poverty rate for married couples with children falls to 10.0%. All other nuclear and extended
family income (if present) reduces the poverty rate of married couples with children to 6.9%—the
official level under the Census Bureau definition.
Among married-couple families with children, earnings of a second working parent are
particularly important in attaining a higher family income standard. Although earnings of a
second parent have only about a three percentage point effect on the poverty rate, the importance
of these earnings is seen higher in the income distribution. Based on the earnings of a married
couple’s primary earner alone, nearly 40% of married couple families with children would be
classified as low-income. However, when the earnings of the second parent are added to family
income, that percentage drops to 27%. Thus, it often takes two working parents for a married-
couple family to attain a modest income.
In 2004, among primary earners in married-couple families with children who worked full-time
full-year, 9% were unable to provide their families with a standard of living above poverty based
on their earnings alone; 15% were unable to secure an earnings-based standard of living beyond
near poverty; and 36% were unable to attain a modest level of income security above twice the
poverty line (not shown in figure). In many cases, both parents work, presumably at least in part
to attain a higher standard of living. Married-couple families face a trade-off relating to whether a
parent should stay home to care for the children, or go to work to secure additional income. The
decision may be weighed by such factors as the secondary worker’s earnings potential and career
ambitions, suitability and cost of child care arrangements, and other work-related costs.

A worker’s ability to support a family depends upon hourly wages earned, number of hours
worked, and family size. Under the official U.S. poverty definition, the poverty income cutoffs, or
thresholds by which families are considered to be poor, vary by family size and composition.
Full-time, full-year work may not be sufficient, given the parent’s wage rate, for a parent to
support a family of a given size above poverty, or to secure a modest standard of living at an
income level of twice the poverty line.
Table 1 shows annual poverty income thresholds and hourly poverty wage rates for families of
varying size and type, in 2004. The table shows, for example, that the poverty income threshold is

⁶^T^h^e^pr^im^a^r^y^e^a^r^ne^r^{in the}^f^a^mⁱ^l^y^is^the^pa^r^e^nt^w^{ith the}^g^r^e^a^t^e^s^{t e}^a^r^ning^s^a^m^ong^the^m^a^r^rⁱ^e^d^c^ouple^.

higher for a four-person family ($19,157, in 2004), consisting of two adults and two children, ⁷
than for a three-person family ($15,205, in 2004), consisting of two adults and one child. Hourly
poverty wage rates shown in the table are calculated by dividing the corresponding annual
poverty threshold by 2,080 hours—the equivalent of 40 hours of work per week for 52 weeks per
year. Thus, for the four-person family, a single earner working full-time, full-year (i.e., 52 weeks,
40 hours per week, or 2,080 hours) would need to earn $9.21 per hour to support his/her family at
a poverty-line income, based on earnings alone. For the three-person family depicted above, the
parent would need to earn $7.31 per hour, working full-time, full-year, to support his/her family at
a poverty-line income. A single parent with one child would need to earn about $6.26 per hour to
bring her/his family income up to the poverty line. From the table, it is apparent that full-time,
full-year work of one parent, at the current federal minimum wage of $5.15 per hour, would be
insufficient to bring a family’s income up to the poverty line under any family configuration.
Table 1. Annual Poverty Income Thresholds and Hourly Poverty Wage Rate (Full-
Time Hourly Equivalents), by Family Type and Number of Children: 2004
^Poor^{Near poo}^r^Eco^nomic^{ally fragile}^Low-In^come
^{(1.00 x}^poverty^{(1.25 x}^poverty^{(1.50 x}^poverty^{(2.00 x}^poverty
^threshold)^threshold)^threshold)^threshold)
^Annua^{l Income Pov}^{erty T}^hre^sh^{olds and Mu}^ltip^{les of Pove}^rty^Thre^sho^lds
^Married
^couple
^One^c^hild^$15,2⁰⁵^$19,0⁰⁶^$22,8⁰⁸^$30,4¹⁰
^Two^$19,1^{57 $23,9}⁴⁶^$28,7³⁶^$38,3¹⁴
^children
^Three^$22,5^{43 $28,1}⁷⁹^$33,8¹⁵^$45,0⁸⁶
^children
^Four^$25,2^{41 $31,5}⁵¹^$37,8⁶²^$50,4⁸²
^children
^Five^$28,2^{71 $35,3}³⁹^$42,4⁰⁷^$56,5⁴²
^children
^Single
^Parent
^One^c^hild^$13,0²⁰^$16,2⁷⁵^$19,5³⁰^$26,0⁴⁰
^Two^$15,2^{19 $19,0}²⁴^$22,8²⁹^$30,4³⁸
^children
^Three^$19,2^{23 $24,0}²⁹^$28,8³⁵^$38,4⁴⁶
^children
^Four^$22,1^{99 $27,7}⁴⁹^$33,2⁹⁹^$44,3⁹⁸
^children
^Five^$24,7^{68 $30,9}⁶⁰^$37,1⁵²^$49,5³⁶
^children

⁷^A^l^s^o^{, it m}^a^y^be^note^d^tha^t^f^a^mⁱ^l^y^inc^o^m^e^pov^e^r^ty^thr^e^s^holds^a^r^e^s^o^m^e^w^h^a^t^hig^h^e^r^{to s}^u^p^por^t^a^c^h^il^d^thaⁿ^t^o^s^u^pp^or^{t a}ⁿ
^a^{dult i}ⁿ^f^a^m^ilie^{s o}^f^e^qua^{l siz}^e^.

^Poor^{Near poo}^r^Eco^nomic^{ally fragile}^Low-In^come
^{(1.00 x}^poverty^{(1.25 x}^poverty^{(1.50 x}^poverty^{(2.00 x}^poverty
^threshold)^threshold)^threshold)^threshold)
^Hour^{ly Pover}^{ty Wage R}^{ate a}ⁿ^d^Multip^{les of Pove}^{rty Wage}^{: Full-}^{Time H}^our^{ly Wage Equ}^iva^l^{ents fo}^{r On}^e
^Worke^r
^Married
^couple
^One^c^hild^$7.31^$9.14^$10.9⁷^$14.6²
^Two^{$9.21 $11.5}¹^$13.8²^$18.4²
^children
^Three^$10.8^{4 $13.5}⁵^$16.2⁶^$21.6⁸
^children
^Four^$12.1^{4 $15.1}⁷^$18.2⁰^$24.2⁷
^children
^Five^$13.5^{9 $16.9}⁹^$20.3⁹^$27.1⁸
^children
^Single
^Parent
^One^c^hild^$6.26^$7.82^$9.39^$12.5²
^Two^{$7.32 $9.15}^$10.9⁸^$14.6³
^children
^Three^{$9.24 $11.5}⁵^$13.8⁶^$18.4⁸
^children
^Four^$10.6^{7 $13.3}⁴^$16.0¹^$21.3⁵
^children
^Five^$11.9^{1 $14.8}⁸^$17.8⁶^$23.8²
^children
^Source:^{Table pr}^epared^{by t}^he^{Congressional Research Service (}^CRS).
^Note:^{Poverty wages and multiples of poverty wage}^{s are derived}^{by dividing annual t}^hres^{holds by 2}⁰⁸⁰^hou^{rs of}
^{work per yea}^{r (the e}^{quivalent of}⁴⁰^{hours of work}^per^{week, for}^{52 week}^{s over t}^{he cours}^{e of the}^year).
As shown in Table 1, for a married-couple family with one child, it takes one parent earning a
wage rate above $14.62 per hour to support the family at twice the poverty line. In many families,
the principal wage earner works for less than $14.62 per hour, and in some families, the principal
wage earner works less than full-time for all 52 weeks in the year. In many families, both parents
must work in order to attain a modest level of income security, above twice the poverty line. Both
hourly wages and the amount of work family members provide contribute to families’ income
living standards.
Employers do not set wages based on the size of their workers’ families. Rather, workers are
theoretically compensated according to their presumed productivity—output per worker. Thus,
the wage rates determined by the forces of the labor market will not necessarily bear any
relationship to the poverty threshold or presumed needs of families with children.

Workers’ wages are related to the market valuation of their productivity. A worker’s productivity
is related to the knowledge, skills and abilities brought to the labor market. As shorthand, we will
refer to these worker traits simply as skills or human capital. Employers’ need for specific skills
(demand), along with the relative scarcity of those skills in the labor force (supply), help
determine the market value, or wage, that workers command and employers offer. Some workers’
skills are valued highly, as reflected in their wages. Other workers’ skills are valued such that the
market offers comparatively low wages.
Two commonly measured aspects of workers’ human capital are educational attainment and
lifetime work experience. In this section, we examine the effects of educational attainment on
parents’ wages and family poverty status, based on the highest education credential that parents
have attained. However, lifetime work experience is not measured on the Current Population
Survey (CPS). In this analysis, we use parents’ age as a proxy for potential on-the-job experience.
Wage rates vary by factors other than human capital. For example, wage rates of African-
Americans and Hispanics tend to be lower than those for whites. Women often earn less than
men. Numerous studies have examined wage rates by race, ethnicity, and gender, attempting to
determine the amount by which wage differentials can be attributed to differences in measurable
background factors (e.g. education and work experience) and the degree to which remaining
unexplained differences might be due to other, less directly measurable factors, such as ⁸
discrimination.
As is commonly known, wage rates tend to be higher for workers with higher levels of
educational attainment. Figure 4 shows the distribution of hourly earnings (i.e., hourly wage ⁹
equivalents) for working parents by the amount of their educational attainment. It shows the
hourly earnings by decile (each 10% of the wage rate distribution) for each level of educational
attainment. The upward slope of the lines shows that wage rates increase with levels of
educational attainment. Further, the widening “spread” of the lines as educational attainment
increases shows that the returns to education have greater variability at higher levels of attainment
than at lower levels.

⁸^Fo^{r a s}^u^rv^e^y^o^f^th^{is literatu}^{re, se}^e^A^ltoⁿ^{ji, Jo}^sep^h^an^d^G^.^an^d^Reb^{ecca M}^.^Blan^k^.^{“Race an}^d^G^eⁿ^d^e^rⁱⁿ^t^h^{e L}^a^b^o^r
^Ma^rk^e^t^,”ⁱⁿ^H^aⁿ^d^b^ook^{of L}^a^b^o^r^E^c^onom^ic^s^,^V^o^l^u^m^e^3C^{, A}^s^he^nf^e^lte^{r, O}^.^{C. a}^{nd Ca}^rd^{, D}^.^e^d^s^.^Els^e^vⁱ^e^r^N^o^rth^H^o^llaⁿ^d^.
²⁰⁰^{3. p. 31}^43-³²⁵⁹^.
⁹^T^h^e^hour^ly^w^a^g^e^e^quiv^a^le^{nt is}^m^e^a^s^ur^e^d^he^r^e^a^s^tota^{l r}^e^p^o^r^t^e^d^aⁿⁿ^u^a^l^e^a^r^ning^s^divⁱ^de^d^by^the^num^be^r^of^hour^s
^w^o^rk^e^d^during^the^y^e^a^r^(i.e^{., re}^po^rte^dⁿ^u^m^b^e^r^of^w^e^e^k^s^w^o^rk^e^d^m^u^ltiplie^{d by}^re^porte^d^num^be^{r of}^ho^{urs w}^o^rk^e^d^{in a}
^t^y^pⁱ^cal^w^e^ek).

Figure 4. Hourly Earnings of Working Parents, by Level of Educational Attainment,
2004
In 2004, the median wage rate equivalent for a parent who had less than a high school diploma
was $9.62 per hour—a full-time full-year earnings level that equates to about 132% of the ¹⁰
poverty line for a married couple with one child. Based on those earnings alone, such a family
would be classified as “economically fragile.” With one additional child, the family would be ¹¹
barely above poverty. The median hourly wage equivalent of workers with a high school
diploma ($12.82) and those with some college but no degree ($14.62) affords a married couple
with one earner and one child a standard of living equal to 175% of poverty in the former case,
and 200% of poverty in the latter case. It should be noted that these wage rates are the median
observed hourly wage rates for working parents, meaning that half of parents at a given education
level earn more per hour, and half earn less. The other earnings percentiles show the distribution
of hourly earnings at each level of educational attainment.
The figure shows that higher levels of educational attainment do not necessarily translate into
higher wages. For example, some workers with less than a high school diploma earn more than
workers with a college degree. While 20% of parents with less than a high school diploma earn
$15.38 per hour or more, 20% of those with a bachelor’s degree earn $13.33 per hour or less.
Those wage levels mean that the top 20% of workers with less than a high school diploma can
support a spouse and one child at a modest income level, equal to 210% of the poverty level,

¹⁰^$9.⁶²^pe^r^ho^ur^x^2,⁰⁸⁰^ho^ur^s^of^w^o^r^k^pe^r^y^e^a^r^divⁱ^de^d^by^the^pov^e^r^t^y^line^f^o^r^a^m^a^r^rⁱ^e^d^c^oup^le^w^{ith o}ⁿ^e^c^h^il^d
⁽^$¹⁵^,2⁰⁵⁾^e^qua^ls¹³^2%^of^pov^e^r^t^y^.
¹¹^$9.⁶²^pe^r^ho^ur^x^2,⁰⁸⁰^ho^ur^s^of^w^o^r^k^pe^r^y^e^a^r^divⁱ^de^d^by^the^pov^e^r^t^y^line^f^o^r^a^m^a^r^rⁱ^e^d^c^oup^le^w^{ith tw}^{o c}^h^il^dr^eⁿ
⁽^$¹⁹^,1⁵⁷⁾^e^qua^ls¹⁰^4%^of^pov^e^r^t^y^.

while the bottom 20% of workers with a bachelor’s degree would support such a family at only

182% of poverty, a level considered here to be low-income.

In Figure 5 we show how parents’ level of
educational attainment and associated wage ^{In this se}^{ction, and in sections t}^h^{at follow}^{, we make}
rates vary in their ability to support a ^{comparisons of a}^{parent’s a}^{bility to support}^a^benchmark^{standard family of th}^ree^{, based on their wage rate,}
benchmark family of three. In the figure, ^{assuming f}^{ull-time full year work. The ben}^chma^{rk family}
working parents’ wages are translated into ¹²^{is defined based on the}^poverty^t^hres^{hold for a married-}
full-time full-year earnings equivalencies as ^{couple with one c}^{hild in 20}^04—$^15,2^05.

a measure of parents’ potential annual
earnings. As such, we are considering only the effect of wages, and not how much or little a
parent works, on the potential economic well-being of his/her family. Parents’ potential earnings
are compared to a benchmark family’s basic needs: the poverty threshold for a three-person
family (i.e., $15,205 for a married couple with one child in 2004). The estimates are for all
working parents (i.e., primary and secondary wage earners in married-couple families as well as
working lone parents). Parents who did not work during the year are excluded from the analysis,
as they have no observed wage rate. As noted above, the estimates assume full-time full-year
work. For parents working less, or for parents who have larger families to support than the 3-
person standard shown here, standards of living relative to poverty would be lower than those
depicted; for parents working beyond a full-time full-year equivalent, or having a smaller family
(i.e., a lone parent with only one child), standards of living relative to poverty would be higher
than those depicted.
Not surprisingly, as workers’ educational attainment increases, so do their wage rates and their
ability to support a family. Figure 5 shows that while 3 out of 10 working parents with less than a
high school diploma would have full-time full-year earnings too low to support a three-person
family above the poverty level, only about 1-in-6 parents with a high school diploma, and about
1-in-20 parents with a bachelor’s degree, have wages too low to support a benchmark family
above poverty. Among working parents with a bachelor’s degree, nearly 1-in-4 have wage rates
insufficient to provide a modest standard of living, above 200% of poverty, for a benchmark
family.
Younger workers’ wages tend to be lower than those of older workers, all else being equal (e.g.,
educational attainment). Younger workers have had less potential time in the workplace than
older workers, and thus have not yet had the job experience and the increase in wages that
accompanies that experience.

¹²^P^a^r^e^nts^’^h^our^ly^e^a^r^ning^s^a^r^e^c^oⁿ^v^e^r^t^e^d^{to a}ⁿⁿ^u^a^liz^e^d^a^m^ounts^a^s^s^u^mⁱ^ng^the^pa^r^e^{nt is}^a^b^le^{to w}^o^r^k^f^u^ll-^tim^e^,^f^u^ll-^y^e^a^r
⁽ⁱ^.e^{., 4}⁰^ho^ur^s^pe^r^w^e^e^k^f^o^r^{52 w}^e^e^k^s^,^or^2,⁰⁸^{0 h}^our^s^aⁿⁿ^u^a^lly⁾^.

Figure 5. Parents’ Earnings Capacity by Level of Education, 2004 (Capacity to
Support a Family of Three Based on Full-Time Full-Year Work at Parents’ Wage
Rate)
Figures 6 and 7 show the hourly earnings distribution of parents by their age. The first of the two
figures shows hourly earnings in married-couple families with children for the parent with the
highest earnings, by that parent’s age; the second figure shows hourly earnings for mothers
heading families with no spouse present, by the mother’s age.
The figures show that older parents tend to command higher earnings than younger parents. The
figure also shows that there is considerable wage dispersion among parents at any given age, and
the dispersion widens with advancing age. For example, Figure 6 shows that in 2004, the median
hourly earnings of the highest earning parent in very young married-couple families (i.e., with
parents under age 25) was $11.06. In other words, half of these parents had hourly earnings that
were higher than $11.06 and half had hourly earnings below $11.06. One-tenth of parents under
age 25 had hourly earnings below $6.11 and one-tenth had hourly earnings above $18.68. On the
other hand, among parents age 45 to 49 who were the primary earner in married-couple families,
half had hourly earnings of $24.04 or more (median amount), and 10% earned $10.68 per hour or
less. However, slightly more than half of parents under the age of 25 earned more per hour than
the bottom 10% of parents age 45 to 49.

Figure 6. Hourly Earnings¹ Distribution, by Parent’s Age,² Married Couples with
Children, 2004
Figure 7, for lone mothers, shows similarly shaped earnings patterns as those for the primary
earner in married-couple families (Figure 6). Hourly earnings tend to be lower for younger than
for older lone mothers. However, comparing hourly earnings levels of lone mothers to the
primary earner in married-couple families, lone mothers’ earnings tend to be much lower. For
example, the median hourly earnings of lone mothers under age 25 was $7.69, compared to
$11.06 for the primary earner of similar age in married-couple families. For parents age 45 to 49,
median hourly earnings of lone mothers ($13.94) were only about 58% of those of primary
earners of similar age in married-couple families ($24.04). Single mothers’ earnings capacities are
much lower than those of the primary breadwinner in married-couple families. As noted in an
earlier section, among married-couple families with children, the husband is most often the
primary earner—about three-quarters of the time.

Figure 7. Hourly Earnings¹ Distribution by Mother’s Age, Mother-Only Families, 2004
Figure 8 is similar to Figure 5, which translated working parents’ observed wages into full-time
full-year earnings equivalencies and compared those potential earnings to the poverty line for a
family of three (i.e., married couple with one child). Where Figure 5 compared earnings
capacities by parents’ level of educational attainment, here the comparison is by parent’s age. As
with the earlier figure, Figure 8 includes all parents (i.e., primary and secondary earners in
married couple families, and lone parents) with observed wages. The figure shows, for example,
that 35% of parents under the age of 25 have wage rates that are too low to support a family of
three above poverty, assuming full-time full-year work. Among parents age 30 to 34, about 13%
have wages that would fail to support a family of three above poverty, and only about half who
are working have wage rates that would provide a family of three with an income standard above
twice the poverty line.

Figure 8. Earnings Capacity by Parents’ Age, 2004 (Capacity to Support a Family of
Three Based on Full-Time Full-Year Work at Parents’ Wage Rate)
Families headed by young parents are particularly economically vulnerable. As shown above,
wage rates of younger parents tend to be lower than those of older parents, as younger parents
have had less time in the labor market to capture the wage premiums that typically come with job
experience. Younger parents also typically have younger children, whose needs for care may limit
the ability or willingness of a parent to work outside the home. A child’s birth, especially among
young parents, may interrupt parents’ education and delay possible accumulation of work
experience, thereby affecting future wage possibilities. Younger parents may lack the job security
that comes with time on the job, exposing them to greater risk of being laid off during economic
downturns.
Figures 9 and 10 depict family income relative to poverty for married-couple and mother-only
families, respectively, by parents’ age. For married-couple families, the age of the older parent is
shown. Figure 9 shows, for example, that more than one-fifth (21.0%) of married-couples with
children in which the parent was under the age of 25 were poor in 2004, based on their immediate
family income. Nearly two-fifths (39.6%) had immediate family income below 150% of the
poverty line. Among married couples in which the parents were slightly older (age 25 to 29),
about one-in-eight (12.0%) were poor, and one-in-four (25.0%) had incomes below 150% of
poverty.

Figure 9. Nuclear Family Income Relative to Poverty by Parent’s Age, Married-
Couple Families with Children, 2004
A similar pattern relating to parents’ age and poverty status is evident among single-mother
families, although notably, at every age poverty rates are much higher among mother-only
families than married-couple families (Figure 10). Among mother-only families, for those with a
mother under age 25, more than seven-in-ten (71.3%) were poor, and for those with a mother age

25 to 29, half were poor (50.1%).

Figure 10. Nuclear Family Income Relative to Poverty by Mother’s Age, Mother-Only
Families with Children, 2004
Not only do the characteristics of individuals (human capital) affect their wage rates, but so too
do the characteristics of their jobs (e.g., occupation, industry, firm size, and working conditions).
Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations wrote much about the division of labor and how differing wage
rates among jobs reflect both institutional and market conditions. To attract workers to a job,
employers set wage rates such that they reflect both the job’s educational/skill requirements and ¹³
its other attributes.
Some occupations typically pay wages that are insufficient to support a benchmark family of three
beyond a low-income level, even if the parent works 40 hours per week all year. Table 2 shows
some of the occupations that pay parents relatively low wages. Shown are occupations that
employed more than 500,000 parents in March 2005 and paid less than $14.62 per hour in that

¹³^Ec^on^om^is^ts^ha^v^e^de^v^e^lope^{d the}^t^h^e^o^r^y^of^e^qua^liz^ing^or^c^o^m^p^eⁿ^s^a^ting^w^a^g^e^dif^f^e^r^eⁿ^tia^ls^{to e}^x^plaⁱ^{n t}^h^e^s^t^r^u^c^t^ur^e^of
^w^a^ges.^Oc^cu^p^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^t^h^at^requⁱ^r^{e l}^a^{rger i}ⁿ^vest^men^t^{s i}ⁿ^edu^catⁱ^o^{n mu}^st^p^a^y^hⁱ^gh^{er w}^a^{ges t}^o^co^m^p^en^s^a^t^e^w^o^rk^ers^f^o^r
^pa^yⁱ^ng^the^up-^f^r^{ont c}^o^s^t^s^of^the^s^e^inv^e^s^t^m^e^nts^.^T^houg^{h t}^h^e^im^pa^c^t^of^e^duc^a^{tion ha}^s^dom^ina^t^e^d^r^ecen^t^dⁱ^scu^ssi^oⁿ^s^o^f
^w^a^g^e^de^te^r^m^ina^{tion, o}^t^he^{r a}^ttri^but^e^s^of^the^job^mⁱ^g^h^{t a}^l^{so a}^f^f^e^c^t^{its w}^a^g^e^re^la^ti^v^e^{to othe}^r^jo^{bs. F}^o^{r e}^x^a^m^ple^,^{jobs t}^h^a^t
^en^t^aⁱ^l^ph^y^sⁱ^cal^ri^s^k^,^dⁱ^f^fⁱ^cu^l^t^w^o^rkⁱⁿ^{g co}^ndⁱ^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^,^t^h^{e ri}^{sk o}^f^un^em^p^l^o^y^men^t^,^o^r^a^hⁱ^gh^{er t}^h^an^average^ri^{sk o}^f^“^f^ai^l^u^re”
^s^houl^d^pa^y^a^“w^a^g^e^pr^em^iu^m^”^—^h^ig^he^r^w^a^ge^s^thaⁿ^the^y^othe^r^w^is^e^w^{ould pa}^y^.^Oⁿ^the^othe^r^ha^nd^{, oc}^c^upa^tio^ns^tha^t^ha^v^e
^de^sⁱ^r^a^ble^c^h^a^r^a^c^t^e^r^is^tic^s^,^s^u^c^h^a^s^ple^a^s^aⁿ^{t w}^o^r^k^ing^c^onditi^ons^,^hig^h^e^r^thaⁿ^a^v^e^r^a^g^e^{job s}^e^c^u^r^ity^{, or}^of^f^e^r^unus^ua^l
^s^c^he^dule^s⁽^f^le^xⁱ^ble^or^pa^r^t^-^tim^e⁾^mⁱ^g^h^{t pa}^y^le^s^s^thaⁿ^othe^r^w^is^e^w^o^uld^be^paⁱ^d^.^Se^e^R^o^s^e^{n, S}^h^e^r^wⁱ^n.^“^T^he^T^h^e^o^r^y^of
^E^q^u^a^lⁱ^zⁱⁿ^{g Di}^ff^eren^ces^{” i}ⁿ^A^s^h^eⁿ^f^el^t^e^r,^Orl^e^y^C.^an^d^Ri^ch^ard^L^a^y^a^rd^(ed^s^.⁾^H^aⁿ^d^b^ook^{of L}^a^b^o^r^Ec^o^nom^ic^s^,^V^o^lum^e^1.
^N^o^r^t^h^H^o^llaⁿ^d^Publis^hing^C^o^{., 19}^{86, p. p. 64}^1-⁶⁹²^.

month. (The $14.62 amount is the low-income cut-off shown in Table 1—200% of the 2004
poverty threshold for the benchmark family defined earlier in this report; i.e., a married couple
with one child). It should be noted that only parents and their wages are shown in the table—other
workers in the same occupations are excluded. The table is sorted by median wage rates of ¹⁴
parents in an occupation in that month.
In March 2005, the occupation that employed at least 500,000 parents and paid them the lowest
median hourly wage was waiters and waitresses, at $7.75 per hour. For parents employed 40
hours per week all 52 weeks of the year, this wage rate would produce an annual income above
100% but below 125% of the poverty threshold for our benchmark family of three. Four other
occupations—cashiers, cooks, maids, and child care workers—also paid parents a wage rate that
would produce an annual income just above the poverty threshold. Three occupational groups—
teacher assistants (employing more than 800,000 parents), nursing, psychiatric, and home health
aides (employing 1.4 million parents), and janitors and building cleaners (employing 1.1 million
parents)—paid a median hourly wage that would produce annual incomes of between 125% and
150% of poverty for full-year full-time workers. Thirteen occupations paid median hourly wages
that would produce annual incomes of between 150% and 200% of poverty.
Table 2. Median Hourly Wage of Employed Parents in Selected Occupations, by Full-
Time Hourly Wage Equivalent Relative to Poverty for a Benchmark Family of
Three,^a March 2005
^Estimated^Estimated
^{median wage}^of^{number of}
^{parents in the}^{parents in the}
^Occ^upation^occ^upation^occ^upation
^{Near Pover}^{ty (100% to 124% o}^f^poverty)^b
^{Waiters and Waitresses}^$7.75^870,²¹⁰
^Cashiers^{8.00 1,16}^9,37⁴
^Cooks^{8.20 972,}¹⁸⁰
^{Maids and Housekee}^{ping Cleaner}^s^8.50^935,⁵⁹⁷
^{Child Care Workers}^9.00^605,⁶⁶⁶
^Economic^al^{ly Fragil}^{e (125% to 149% of poverty)}^c
^{Teacher Assistant}^s^10.0⁰^821,⁹⁰⁵
^{Nursing, Psyc}^{hiatric, and Home}^{Health Aides}^10.0⁰^1,44^3,83⁴
^{Janitors and Building Cleaners}^10.0⁰^1,08^8,13⁵
^{Low Income (150% to 199% of}^poverty)^d
^{Stock Clerks and Order Fillers}^11.0⁰^775,³⁴⁹
^{Receptionists and In}^{formation Clerks}^11.4¹^762,⁴⁸⁴
^{Preschool and Kindergarten Teac}^hers^12.0⁰^732,⁸⁷³

¹⁴^Me^diaⁿ^w^a^g^e^da^ta^a^r^e^f^r^om^the^Ma^r^c^{h 20}⁰⁵^C^u^r^r^eⁿ^t^Pop^u^la^tio^{n S}^u^r^v^ey^’^s⁽^C^P^S⁾^“^o^utg^oⁱⁿ^g^r^o^ta^ti^on^g^r^oup,”
^c^o^m^p^rⁱ^sⁱ^ng^a^bout^one^-^f^our^t^h^of^the^tota^{l Ma}^r^c^{h C}^{PS s}^a^m^p^le^{. Ea}^c^h^m^{onth, the}^ou^tg^oing^r^o^ta^tio^{n g}^r^ou^{p is}^a^s^k^e^{d a}^s^e^rⁱ^e^s
^of^que^s^tio^ns^to^de^te^r^m^ine^theⁱ^r^us^ua^{l h}^our^ly^or^w^e^e^k^l^y^w^a^g^e^{. For}^th^os^e^e^m^plo^y^e^d^by^the^hour^,^theⁱⁿ^f^o^r^m^a^tion
^r^e^pr^e^s^eⁿ^ts^the^r^e^p^o^r^t^e^d^ho^ur^ly^w^a^g^e^{. For}^th^os^e^w^{ho r}^e^po^r^t^t^h^e^y^a^r^e^not^pa^id^by^the^ho^ur^{, a}ⁿ^h^our^ly^w^a^g^e^e^quiv^a^le^{nt w}^a^s
^c^o^m^pute^d^by^divⁱ^ding^us^ua^{l w}^e^e^k^ly^ea^rⁿ^ing^s^by^us^ua^{l ho}^ur^s^of^e^m^p^l^oy^m^e^nt.

^Estimated^Estimated
^{median wage}^of^{number of}
^{parents in the}^{parents in the}
^Occ^upation^occ^upation^occ^upation
^{Retail Sa}^lespersons^12.0⁰^1,35^4,22⁷
^{Construction La}^borers^12.0⁰^510,⁷⁰²
^{Production Workers, All Other}^12.0⁰^640,⁵⁴¹
^{Customer Service Rep}^resentative^s^12.8⁵^1,13^6,09⁷
^{Secretaries and Administrative A}^ssistants^13.5¹^2,38^5,51⁸
^{Bookkeeping, Accounting, and A}^{uditing Clerks}^13.7⁵^818,⁷²⁶
^{Laborers a}^{nd Freight, Stock, and Material Movers, Hand}^13.8⁰^1,08^7,82¹
^{Automotive Service Technicians}^{and Mec}^hanics^14.0⁰^516,⁰⁴⁵
^{Miscellaneous Assemblers}^{and Fa}^bricators^14.2⁵^805,⁶⁰⁰
^{First-Line Supervisors/Ma}^nagers^{of Retail Sa}^{les Workers}^14.4³^1,54^7,93⁷
^Source:^{Congressional Researc}^h^{Service (CRS) based on the U.S. Census B}^urea^{u’s Marc}^{h 2}⁰⁰⁵^Cu^rrent
^{Population Survey (CPS).}
^a.^Benchmar^{k family is a married-couple with one}^child.
^b.^{Hourly wage rate}^{for be}^nch^mark^{family of three at}^near^{poverty: $}^7.31^per^{hour (}¹⁰^{0% of t}^{he pove}^rty
^thres^{hold) but less tha}^{n $}^9.14^pe^{r hour}⁽¹²^{5% of t}^he^{poverty t}^hre^shold).
^c.^{Hourly wage rate}^{for be}^nch^mark^{family of three at}^near^{poverty: g}^{reater tha}^{n $}^9.14^pe^{r hou}^{r (12}⁵^%^{of the}
^{poverty th}^{reshold) but}^{less tha}ⁿ^$10.9⁷^per^{hour (1}⁵⁰^{% of the}^po^{verty th}^reshold).
^d.^{Hourly wage rate}^{for be}^nch^mark^{family of three at}^near^{poverty: g}^{reater tha}^{n $}^10.9⁷^per^{hour (1}⁵⁰^{% of the}
^{poverty th}^{reshold) but}^{less tha}ⁿ^$14.6²^per^{hour (2}⁰⁰^{% of the}^po^{verty th}^reshold)
The median wage information in the table means that, in March 2005, half of the parents in the
occupation earned less than the wage value, and half earned more. Thus, though the table shows
no occupation employing more than 500,000 parents with an hourly wage that would produce an
annual income below the poverty level for the benchmark family of three (at full-year, full-time
work), some parents in the occupations shown on this table did earn less than poverty-level
wages. This is shown in Figure 11, which illustrates the distribution of wages within these
occupations by the proportion of parents in the occupation with hourly wages below 100% of
poverty and below 200% of poverty. For example, the median hourly wage for parents who were
cooks was $8.20 in March 2005; this wage would produce an annual income above the poverty
line for the benchmark family with full-year, full-time work. However, the hourly wages of 37%
of all parents who worked as cooks would have produced an annual income below the poverty
line, even if the parent worked 40 hours per week all year. More than 9 out of 10 parents who
were cooks earned an hourly wage that would have produced an income of less than 200% of
poverty for a benchmark family of three, even if the parent worked full-time all year.

Figure 11. Percent of Parents with Hourly Earnings Below 100% and 200% of Poverty (Based on the Poverty Threshold for a
Married Couple with One Child), by Selected Occupations, March 2005
^W^a^g^e^B^e^l^o^w^100%^o^f^Po^vert^y^Wag^e^100%^t^o^200%^o^f^Po^v^e^r^t^y
^Cook^s
^{Child Ca}^r^e^W^o^r^k^e^r^s
^M^aⁱ^d^{s an}^d^Ho^u^sekeepⁱⁿ^g^Cl^ean^ers
^N^u^rsiⁿ^g^,^Psychⁱ^a^t^rⁱ^c^,^an^d^H^o^m^e^H^eal^t^h^Aⁱ^d^e^s
^W^aⁱ^t^{ers an}^d^W^aⁱ^t^resses
^C^ashⁱ^e^r^s
^Janⁱ^t^o^r^{s an}^d^B^uⁱ^l^dⁱⁿ^g^C^l^ean^ers
^T^each^er^A^ssi^stan^ts
^S^t^oc^k^Cle^r^k^s^a^{nd Or}^de^r^Fille^r^s
^R^ecep^tⁱ^oⁿⁱ^st^{s an}^d^In^f^o^rm^at^ioⁿ^C^l^erks
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33615}^Preschool^{and K}ⁱ^nde^{rgarten Teachers}
^g/w^P^r^oduc^{tion Wor}^k^e^r^s^,^{All Othe}^r
^s^.or^C^u^st^o^m^{er Serv}^{ice R}^e^p^r^esen^t^a^tⁱ^v^e^s
^le^ak^Cons^truc^{tion La}^bore^r^s
^://wiki^R^e^t^a^{il Salesp}^ersoⁿ^s
^h^ttp^La^bor^e^r^s^a^{nd Fr}^eⁱ^{ght, S}^t^oc^k^,^a^{nd M}^a^te^rⁱ^a^l^M^o^v^e^r^s^,^Ha^nd
^Secret^{aries an}^d^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^st^ratⁱ^v^e^A^ssist^an^t^s
^B^ookkeepi^ng,^A^ccounti^ng,^{and A}^udi^ti^{ng C}^l^erks
^Mⁱ^scellan^e^o^u^s^A^ssem^b^l^{ers an}^d^F^a^b^r^icat^o^r^s
^Fir^s^t-Line^S^upe^r^v^is^or^s^/^M^a^na^ge^r^s^{of Re}^ta^{il S}^a^le^s^Wor^k^e^r^s
^A^u^t^o^m^o^tⁱ^{ve Servi}^{ce T}^echⁿⁱ^ci^an^{s an}^d^Mech^anⁱ^c^s
^0%^10%^20%^30%^40%^50%^60%^70%^80%^90%^100%
^Source:^Fⁱ^gur^{e pr}^epar^{ed by}^{the C}^ongr^essi^onal^R^e^sear^{ch Ser}^vⁱ^c^{e based}^{on anal}^y^sⁱ^s^{of U}^.^{S. C}^{ensus Bur}^{eau 2005 C}^PS/ASEC^outgoi^{ng r}^o^tati^on
^gr^{oup dat}^a.

The previous section focused on hourly wage rates. The second part of the equation that
determines annual earnings is the amount of work done during the year—number of hours and
weeks actually worked. The hourly poverty wage rates shown earlier in Table 1 reflect the hourly
wage needed to achieve a level of annual earnings assuming work of 40 hours per week for all 52
weeks of the year. However, many parents work less than full-time, year-round. Some weeks are
spent unemployed, because the parent was either laid-off from a job or is out of work but actively
seeking employment. Other weeks may be spent out of the labor force, where the parent is not
seeking work. Also, but less frequently, some parents work less than full-time work schedules.
The amount of work that a parent wants to provide is based on tradeoffs between the income
derived from work and the value of leisure and home production (e.g. housework, child care) that
would have to be foregone in order to work. With children involved, the cost-benefit analysis that
goes into the decision to participate in the labor force—and for how many hours in a week, per
year—includes costs associated with caring for children. Moreover, wanting to provide work and
actually working are not always the same thing. For example, many, if not most, employers offer
only fixed work schedules with fixed hours, which may not accommodate some parents’ needs or
preferences.
Figure 12 summarizes annual hours of work for both the mother and father in married-couple
families with children in 2004. It shows annual hours by several levels of job attachment—from
no work during the year, to being fully engaged in work by working the equivalent of 40 hours
per week for all 52 weeks in the year (2,080 hours in the year) or more, and two categories in
between: attachment up to three-quarters-time (less than 1,560 hours per year), and near full-year
full-time attachment (1,560 to 2,079 hours during the year). The left column of the figure shows
married fathers’ work attachment, with 80.5% shown as fully engaged in the workforce during the
year (2,080 hours or more). A summary of married mothers’ work attachment is shown in the
second to last row on the chart. It shows that 35% of married mothers were fully engaged in the
workforce during the year. It also indicates that about 7-in-10 mothers in married-couple families
worked at some time during the year, while 29.2% had no job attachment during the year.
The figure also shows the percent of families with children headed by a married couple by the
combination of mothers’ and fathers’ hours of work during the year. It shows that the most
common combination is when both the mother and father worked the equivalent of full-time full-
year work during the year. In 2004, 28.2% of all families with children headed by a married
couple had both parents fully engaged in the workforce in the year. However, also common was
full engagement by married fathers with no work by the mother (23.4% of all married couple
families with children).
The last two rows of the figure compare the job attachment of married and single mothers. Single
mothers are more likely than married mothers to work, and to work full-time, year-round.
Moreover, a comparison of married fathers’ job attachment (left column) and married and single
mothers’ attachment (bottom two rows) shows that despite the historical increase in labor force
participation of women, job attachment patterns of married fathers and (both married and single)
mothers remain quite different.

Figure 12. Parents’ Job Attachment: Married Couples and Lone Mothers, 2004
Most families with children (92%) had one parent who worked at some point in 2004. However,
the economic status of families depends not so much on whether a parent works, but rather on
how much work one or both parents engage in over the year. In the previous section, we examined
the total number of hours parents worked during the year. Here, we examine how parents acquire
those hours of work—are they working all or just some weeks during the year; when they work,
are they working full-time or part-time schedules? To examine this question, we use the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) definition of full-year employment as working 50 weeks or
more during the year, and the definition of full-time work as 35 hours or more during the week. In
this section, we find that less than full participation in the workforce—working fewer than 50
weeks, and to a lesser extent, working a part-time schedule—was associated with greater
likelihood of poverty and low annual earnings.
Figure 13 portrays the work status of the principal earner in married-couple families in 2004. In
the vast majority of cases where at least one parent in a married couple worked at some time

during the year (98%), the work status shown is for the parent who earned the most during the
year.
Among married-couple families in which the earnings of the highest paid parent were insufficient
to lift the family above poverty, almost one-half had a parent working full-time, year-round.
Higher up in the income distribution, full-time full-year work was even more common. Among
those families who were near-poor (incomes above poverty but below 125% of the poverty line)
based on the parents’ earnings, 83% had a parent who worked full-time all year, and among
families with earnings between 150% and 200% of poverty, the percentage with a full-time full-
year worker rose to 90%.
Figure 13. Principal Earner’s Work Status in Married-Couple Families with Children,
By Earnings Relative to Poverty: 2004
^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}¹⁰⁰^.⁰^%
^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}
^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}
^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}⁹⁰^.⁰^%
^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}
^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}⁸⁰^.⁰^%
^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}
^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}⁷⁰^.⁰^%
^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}
^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}⁶⁰^.⁰^%
^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^t
^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}⁵⁰^.⁰^%^e^r^cen
^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^P^N^o^nw^or^k^e^r⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰
^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}⁴⁰^.⁰^%^P^a^r^t^Ye^a^r^,^Pa^r^t^tⁱ^m^e⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰
^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^P^a^r^t^Y^e^a^r^{, F}^u^l^l^ti^m^e⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰
^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}³⁰^.⁰^%^F^u^l^l^Y^e^a^r^,^P^a^r^t^ti^m^e⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰
^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^F^u^l^l^Y^e^a^r^,^F^u^l^l^ti^m^e
^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}²⁰^.⁰^%
^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}
^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}
^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}¹⁰^.⁰^%
^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}
^0.⁰^%
^Les^s^t^han¹^.⁰⁰^1.⁰⁰^t^o^1.²⁴^1.^{25 t}^o¹^.⁴⁹^1.⁵⁰^t^o^1.⁹⁹^2.⁰⁰^t^o²^.⁹⁹^3.⁰⁰^a^{nd o}^v^er
^E^a^rnⁱⁿ^g^s^t^o^P^o^v^e^rt^y^R^a^tⁱ^o^f^o^{r t}^h^{e P}^a^ren^t^wⁱ^t^h^t^h^e^G^r^ea^t^e^st^E^a^rnⁱⁿ^g^s
^So^u^r^c^e^:^Fⁱ^g^u^r^e^pr^ep^ar^ed^b^y^t^{he C}^oⁿ^g^r^e^s^sⁱ^ona^l^R^e^s^ear^c^h^S^e^rvⁱ^c^e^(C^R^S^{) b}^a^s^e^{d on a}ⁿ^an^al^y^sⁱ^s^of^U^.^S^.^C^eⁿ^s^u^s^B^u^r^eau²⁰⁰⁵^C^P^S^/^ASEC^d^a^t^a^.
Whether one or both parents are fully engaged in the workforce affects the economic status of
families with children headed by a married couple. Figure 14 shows the percent of such families
that have one or two full-year, full-time workers within each income group. Here, poverty status
is based only on parents’ earnings relative to families’ needs. As shown on the chart, nearly half
(49.6%) of earnings-poor married-couple families with children have no parent fully engaged in
the workforce during the year. However, to attain a modest income (i.e., above 200% of poverty),
it often takes both parents to be fully engaged in the workforce. Among the more affluent families
(earnings equivalent to 300% of poverty and above), about 45% had both parents working full-
year at full-time schedules.

Figure 14. Nuclear Family Poverty Status Based on Parents’ Earnings Alone, by
Parents’ Job Attachment: Married-Couple Families, 2004
Figure 15 shows the work status for single mothers in 2004. The picture differs from that shown
for married couples. Despite large increases in the labor force participation of single mothers
from the mid-1990s through 2001 (with some declines since), single mothers still had a relatively
high incidence of no work in 2004. Among single mothers who were earnings-poor based on
their own earnings, more than four-in-ten (42.5%) did not work in 2004 and thereby had no
earnings.
Full-time, full-year work by a single mother is often necessary for her family to escape poverty,
but does not guarantee attainment of a modest standard of living, defined as more than twice the
poverty line, or even a standard of living beyond near poverty. In 2004, among lone-mother
families who were “near poor” (above poverty but below 125% of poverty) based on the mothers’
earnings alone, two-thirds (66.9%) had a single mother who worked full-time, year-round.
Among single-mother families with earnings between 150% and 200% of poverty, in more than
four out of five of these families (83.5%), the mother worked full-time year-round.
Nearly half of all lone mothers (48%) worked full-time, full-year in 2004.¹⁵ Based on their
earnings alone, nearly one-in-five (18.8%) were earnings poor, in spite of the mothers’ full-time
attachment to a job (not shown in figure). Nearly three-in-ten had earnings below near poverty

¹⁵^N^o^{t s}^h^ow^{n in f}ⁱ^g^u^r^e^{. Se}^e^a^ppe^ndi^x^Ta^b^l^{e B}^-⁷^.

(under 125% of poverty), and the share with earnings below 150% of poverty approached four-
out-of-ten families (37.7%) headed by lone mothers who worked full-time, full-year.
Figure 15. Work Status of Lone Mothers
^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}¹⁰⁰^.⁰^%
^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}
^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}⁹⁰^.⁰^%
^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}
^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}⁸⁰^.⁰^%
^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}
^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}⁷⁰^.⁰^%
^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}
^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}⁶⁰^.⁰^%
^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^t
^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}⁵⁰^.⁰^%^r^cen
^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^P^e^N^o^nw^or^k^e^r⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰
^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}⁴⁰^.⁰^%⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰^P^a^r^t^Y^e^a^r^{, P}^a^r^t^ti^m^e⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰
^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰^P^a^r^t^Y^e^a^r^{, F}^u^l^l^ti^m^e⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰
^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}³⁰^.⁰^%⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰^F^u^l^l^Y^e^a^r^,^P^a^r^t^ti^m^e⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰
^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰^F^u^l^l^Y^e^a^r^,^F^u^l^l^ti^m^e
^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}
^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}²⁰^.⁰^%
^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}
^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}¹⁰^.⁰^%
^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}
^{0000000000000000000000000}^{000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^{0000000000000000000000000}^0.⁰^%
^Les^s^t^han¹^.⁰⁰^1.⁰⁰^t^o^1.²⁴^1.^{25 t}^o¹^.⁴⁹^1.⁵⁰^t^o^1.⁹⁹^2.⁰⁰^t^o²^.⁹⁹^3.⁰⁰^a^{nd o}^v^er
^M^o^th^e^r^'s^E^a^rⁿⁱⁿ^g^s^to^P^o^v^e^r^t^y^R^a^ti^o
^So^u^r^c^e^:^Fⁱ^g^u^r^e^pr^ep^ar^ed^b^y^t^{he C}^oⁿ^g^r^e^s^sⁱ^ona^l^R^e^s^ear^c^h^S^e^rvⁱ^c^e^(C^R^S^{) b}^a^s^e^{d on a}^nal^y^sⁱ^s^o^f^U^.^S^.^C^ens^us^B^u^r^e^a^u
²⁰⁰⁵^C^P^S^/^ASEC^d^a^t^a^.

In the previous sections, we examined the relation of wages and job attachment to family earnings
adequacy, as indicated by family income poverty thresholds. We showed how the ability to
support a family is closely related to parents’ education and age. Some parent’s earnings
capacities based on their observed wage rates are too low to support a couple and a single child
above poverty, let alone to attain a level of modest income security above twice the poverty line,
even if the parent is able to work full-time, full-year. Families headed by a single parent are at a
distinct economic disadvantage compared to married couples, in part due to the unavailability of
potential added earnings that come when both parents work, but also due to the absence of a
second caretaker who can help watch over children, thereby allowing the other parent to work.
Adam Smith opened The Wealth of Nations by noting that improvement in labor productivity
stemmed from the effects of the division of labor. Smith also noted that different occupations
resulting from the division of labor command different wages, with market and institutional
forces combining to create these wage differentials. Thus, the division of labor provides the
means to an affluent society, but also results in an unequal distribution of the rewards from work.

This report has identified several groups of families with children that are likely to be poor or
low-income based on the work of their parents:
• Families headed by a single mother. Given that wage rates of many parents’ jobs
would leave a family in low-income status, it often takes two parents working for
a family’s earnings to attain a modest income level, above the low-income
threshold of 200% of poverty used in this report. Full-time work for many single
parents may be difficult to attain, if safe, reliable and affordable child care is
difficult to obtain. Obviously, then, single parent families are at high risk for low-
income and poverty.
• Young families. The principal earner of families headed by a parent under the age
of 25 had median earnings of $11.06 per hour—a wage rate that would classify
the three person benchmark family used in this analysis as low-income, but just
slightly above the cut-off that would classify the family as economically fragile
(i.e., 150% of poverty), based on full-time full-year work. The low earnings of
these young parents is a logical consequence of being at the beginning of their
adult work careers and not yet having accumulated job experience that raises
earnings capacity. In young married-couple families, it may make little economic
sense for both parents to work, as child care for young children may be expensive
relative to additional earnings that might be obtained. Additionally, many
families prefer that a parent stay home to care for and nurture their children, and
a parent’s labor force withdrawal may be voluntary and temporary. Low income
and economic insecurity may be temporary during the early years of family
formation, but have implications for family well-being and child development
and outcomes, in years beyond.
• Families Headed by a Parent Without A College Degree. Families headed by a
parent who lacked a high school degree were likely to be low-income. Median
wage rates—even for high school graduates and those with some college, but no
college degree—result in the benchmark three-person family being classified in
the low-income category, by having earnings below 200% of poverty. Unlike low
wage rates caused solely by a lack of job experience, the low-income status for
families headed by a parent without a college degree might not be temporary.
Social and economic behavior that is considered consistent with “personal responsibility”—such
as marriage, work, and education—is not sufficient for a family with a child or children to escape
low income. Rates of poverty and low income for single-parent families are higher than in
married-couple families. However, a non-trivial percentage of poor families with children—
28%—were headed by married couples. Wage rates are strongly related to educational status, but
in 20% of poor families with children, the principal earner had a college degree.
Moreover, even more affluent families with children may be considered economically vulnerable.
Based on the earnings of both parents, 27% of married-couple families with children are low-
income; however, based solely on the earnings of the family’s principal earner, 39% of such
families would be low-income. Thus, the economic well-being of many married-couple families
with children is vulnerable to the loss of earnings of the family’s second earner. Further, there are
reasons that some parents do not or cannot work full-time all year, such as involuntary
unemployment, illness, or disability, or the need to take time off for the birth or care of a child or
disabled family member.

This analysis has focused on the economic outcomes generated by the labor market. Government
policy, of course, also has important implications for the economic well-being and security of
families with children, although it will be only briefly mentioned in this report. Government
policies that promote full employment while at the same time keeping inflation in check are
clearly important to working families. While a strong economy is necessary to promote family
economic security, for many families it is not sufficient. Families may still face economic
vulnerability, even when the economy is healthy. Table 3 presents a typology of selected existing
government programs (focusing on federal or federal-state programs) and how they relate to the
economic well-being and vulnerability of families with children. Many of these programs face
difficult tradeoffs and competing objectives—such as providing some measure of basic economic
security while also promoting personal responsibility. This is especially true of “safety net”
programs that provide assistance to mitigate income loss caused by certain events, but result in
inherent undesired behavioral effects, such as work disincentives and marriage penalties. Other
policies and programs seek to mitigate the undesired outcomes often associated with safety-net
programs, by increasing the financial returns associated with work or providing opportunities to
reduce the intergenerational transmission of poverty.
• Policies to Mitigate the Risk of Earnings Loss. These programs represent the
basic two-tiered “safety net” of social insurance programs and need-tested
programs. The social insurance programs base benefits on past earnings, and
entitlement to these benefits is earned through work in covered employment. The
caseload and expenditures of social insurance programs are far greater than those
of the need-tested programs. For families with children, the basic contours of the
safety net were established in the Social Security Act of 1935, with the last major
additions coming with establishment of Medicaid (1965), Medicare for the
disabled, including children (1972), and food stamps, made available nationwide
in the 1970s. Most recently, this safety net was affected by the welfare reform
law of 1996, which converted Aid to Families with Dependent Children,
originally established in the 1965 Social Security Act, into a block grant to states
that provides time-limited and work-conditioned cash assistance to poor families
with children.
• Policies to Raise the Financial Returns to Work. These are policies to directly
raise wages (e.g., minimum wage legislation), provide earnings supplements, or
reduce the costs of going to work. Minimum wage legislation—like the Social
Security Act—dates back to the Great Depression. However, the 1990s saw a
great deal of expansion of policies in this category, including expansions of the
Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which provides a “work bonus” to families
with low to moderate earnings, and increased funding for child care, which helps
offset the costs of going to work.
• Policies Aimed at Family Formation. There has been much recent attention
paid to this class of policies. Tax policies, such as the deduction for dependents
and the (partially refundable) child credit, benefit families based on their number
of children. These policies to some extent adjust families’ tax burdens based on
family size. They may also mitigate, to an extent, the fact that employers
consider a worker’s assumed productivity when striking wage bargains, rather
than the number of dependents a worker must support. The role of cash
welfare—cushioning economic hardship when one parent is absent, but thought
by some to facilitate single-parenthood—has been controversial. However,
collections of child support for both welfare and non-welfare families, through

the federal-state child support enforcement program, have increased dramatically
since the mid-1990s. Recent attention has been paid to so-called “marriage
penalties” in the tax code, and very recently marriage promotion and education
programs have been introduced. Meanwhile, family planning grants, authorized
in 1970, may have the effect of deferring child-bearing, while adolescent family
life (created in 1980) and abstinence education (enacted in 1996) specifically
focus on preventing pregnancy among teenagers.
• Policies Aimed at Preventing Intergenerational Transmission of Poverty. As
briefly mentioned, poverty among families with children has special
consequences, particularly since growing up poor might affect a child’s life
chances as an adult. Programs such as Head Start, and Title I grants to local
school districts for supplementary education and services for disadvantaged
children, are intended to help poor children obtain the education needed to escape
poverty as an adult.

Table 3. Typology of Selected Social Policies that Address the Economic Vulnerabilities and Security of Families with Children
^{Transfer payments}^Educ^ation/^{Tax Policies}^{Regulatory/Legal Policies}
^Training
^{Reducing risks of lost}^{—Social Insurance:}^{—Progressive income taxation.}^{—Notification of mass layoffs.}
^earnings^{Social security (retirement,}^{—Tax sub}^{sidies for employer-}^{—Family and medical leave.}
^disability^{, survivors); unem}^ployment^{provided retirement, disability,}
^insuran^{ce; workers}^{and survivors}^ben^efits;
^compensation^{workers’ compensation, etc.}
^{—Need-tested trans}^{fers (TANF}
^{cash, food stamps, etc.)}
^Increasing^retu^rns^to^{—Child care subsidies}^—^{Pell Grants}^—Earned^{Income Tax}^Credit^{—Minimum Wage}
^work^{—Work requirem}^{ents in}^need-^—Guara^{nteed stude}^{nt loans}^{—Dependent Ca}^{re Tax Credit}
^{tested programs}^{—WIA job training program}^s^{—Tax sub}^{sidies for employer-}
^{provided benefits}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33615}^Pol^{icies Affecting}^{—Need-tested trans}^{fers (TANF}^{—Marriage p}^{romotion initiatives}^{—Eliminating marriage pe}^nalties^{—Child support e}^nforceme^nt
^g/w^{Family Formati}^on^{cash, food stamps, etc.)}^{—Family planning grant}^s^{—Dependent e}^xem^ption
^s^.or^{—Adolescent family life}^{—Partially refundable Child Tax}
^le^ak^Credit
^{—Abstinence}^education
^://wiki^{—Adoption tax credit}
^h^ttp
^Reducing^{—Compensatory}^edu^cation

^{intergenerational}^{—Head start}
^{transmission of povert}^y

This report has principally focused on parents and their children. For this purpose, we focused on
parents and their nuclear families as the primary units of analysis. This approach diverges from
that more commonly used, in which all related members of a household are considered a family;
in this report, we define such families as extended families. Additionally, individuals unrelated to
nuclear or extended family members may also reside within a household.
Figure A-1 depicts families with children by their family/household living arrangements. The
figure shows, for example, that 91% of married couples with children live as independent nuclear
family units, with no other extended family members or unrelated members residing in the
household. In contrast, only about 60% of lone-mother families and just 41% of families headed
by lone fathers live as independent nuclear family households. Among married-couple families
with children, about 8% live in households with extended family members. In comparison, about
one-quarter of lone-mother families and nearly an equal share of lone-father families live in
households with extended family members. In some of these extended family member
households, other nonrelatives may also reside. About 18% of lone-mother families and more
than twice that share of lone-father families (41%) reside in households with unrelated household
members (the top two tiers of each bar); among lone-mother families, 15% live only with
unrelated members, and a small fraction (3%) also include extended family members in the
household. Among lone-father families, 36% live only with unrelated members, and 5% also
include extended family members in the household.

Figure A-1. Family/Household Living Arrangements Among Families with Children,
2004
In this report, we considered at times only nuclear family members’ income and needs when
assessing family economic well-being. In other instances, extended family members’ income and
needs were also included in the analysis. As noted above, some nuclear and related extended
families live in households with unrelated members as well. However, the potential effect of
unrelated household members’ income and needs on nuclear or extended family well-being may
vary to the extent that resources are shared among household members. In some cases, unrelated
household members, such as unmarried partners, may make significant economic contributions to
the nuclear family co-residing in the household. In other cases, the sharing of economic resources
among unrelated household members may be minimal. However, there is no clear means of
determining the extent to which unrelated household members share income and represent a joint
economic unit. In this analysis, we excluded unrelated household members’ income and needs
when considering family economic well-being.
The effect of family living arrangements on poverty status can be illustrated by a closer
examination of the families as economic units under various family configurations and income-
sharing arrangements.Figure A-2 illustrates the effects of family living arrangements and the
treatment of income and needs on family economic well-being, relative to poverty. The figure is
for families headed by lone mothers.

Figure A-2. Poverty Status of Lone-Mother Families by Family/Household Living
Arrangement and Poverty Income Definition, 2004
The figure shows that overall, 41.8% of families headed by lone mothers are poor, if just their
immediate nuclear family’s needs and income are counted for purposes of determining poverty
status. However, if all related household members’ income and needs are considered, the poverty
rate of lone-mother families drops to 35%—the official Census Bureau poverty rate (which
considers all related family members as the economic unit for poverty determination). If the
economic unit is expanded to include all unrelated household members, the poverty rate for lone-
mother families falls to 29.9%. It should be noted, however, that for purposes of income and
poverty determination, official Census Bureau statistics do not combine unrelated household
members’ income or needs.
It was shown earlier in this appendix that about 60% of lone-mother families live as independent
nuclear family households, absent any extended related family members or unrelated household
members. Among these families, an estimated 37% are poor. Their poverty status is the same
under all three poverty definitions: poor based on nuclear family income; poor based on extended
family income; and poor based on household income.
Roughly 22% of lone-mother families live with other extended family members only. Among
these families, an estimated 51% are poor based on their immediate family income. However,
when the income and needs of other related household members are taken into consideration,
their poverty rate drops to about 23%—less than half the rate when only immediate nuclear
family income was considered, and a rate below that of lone mothers who live as independent
nuclear families (37%). In part, the nuclear family poverty rate (51%) of lone mothers in such
living arrangements may be so high because they live with extended family members who help
provide for their support; this support is not counted in determining the 51% poverty rate but is

evidenced by the 23% poverty rate. If these lone mothers were living independently, their poverty
rate might not be as high as 51%, but it also might not be as low as the 37% among lone mothers
currently observed to be living independently; some would likely work and earn more than they
do when living with extended family, or would seek to qualify for government assistance in the
absence of extended family income support.
The right-most set of clustered bars in Figure A-2 depict the poverty status of lone mothers living
with only their children and at least one unrelated household member. As noted above, about 15%
of lone mothers live in such households. When only her immediate nuclear family income and
needs are taken into account, about 46% of these lone-mother families would be considered poor.
However, if all unrelated household members are considered and their income counted for
purposes of determining poverty, the poverty rate among these lone-mother families falls to
14.8%—well below the poverty rate of lone mothers living independently in nuclear families with
no extended or unrelated household members. In these households with unrelated members, the
extent to which household income is shared among members is uncertain. CRS estimates that
about 1 million lone mothers, (approximately 65% of 1.6 million lone-mother families living with ¹⁶
unrelated household members) may be in cohabiting relationships with a man. In some cases,
unmarried partners may share economic resources and responsibilities much in the same way as
married couples do.

¹⁶^W^e^ideⁿ^tify^lik^e^l^y^c^oha^biting^c^o^uple^s^ba^se^d^on^inf^e^re^nc^e^.^Cou^p^le^{s a}^r^e^ideⁿ^tif^ie^{d a}^s^lik^e^l^y^c^oha^biting^if^the^r^e^a^r^e^only
^tw^{o unr}^e^l^a^t^e^d^a^d^ultsⁱⁿ^t^h^e^h^ous^e^hol^d,^of^the^o^p^p^o^s^ite^s^e^x^,^w^{ho a}^r^e^bot^h^unm^a^r^rⁱ^e^d^a^{nd w}^h^e^r^e^the^r^e^a^r^e^{no r}^e^la^te^d
^su^b^f^a^mⁱ^l^y^m^e^m^b^ers^p^r^esen^t^.

Table B-1. Family/Household Living Arrangements Among Families with Children,
2004
^{(Numbers in 1,000s)}
^Married-cou^ple^Lone-mother^Lone-father
^Total^families^families^families
^{Total 39,6}⁸⁶^26,7⁵⁹^10,4²⁸^2,49⁹
^{Nuclear inde}^pendent^families^31,5⁵⁵^24,3²¹^6,22⁰^1,01³
^{Nuclear fa}^{milies part of exte}^nded
^{related family households}^4,83⁶^2,04²^2,33⁵⁴⁵⁸
^{Nuclear fa}^{milies with extended fa}^mily
^{and un}^{related membe}^rs⁵⁰³⁸⁴²⁹⁶¹²³
^{Nuclear fa}^{milies with unrelated}
^{members 2,79}²³¹²^1,57⁶⁹⁰⁴
^{Percent distribution}^100.^0%^100.^0%^100.^0%^100.^0%
^{Nuclear inde}^pendent^families^79.5%^90.9%^59.6%^40.5%
^{Nuclear fa}^{milies part of exte}^nded
^{related family households}^12.2%^7.6%^22.4%^18.3%
^{Nuclear fa}^{milies with extended fa}^mily
^{and un}^{related membe}^rs^1.3%^0.3%^2.8%^4.9%
^{Nuclear fa}^{milies with unrelated}
^{members 7.0%}^1.2%^15.1%^36.2%
^Source:^{Table pr}^epared^{by t}^he^{Congressional Research Service}^{based on analysis of U.S. Census}^Bureau²⁰⁰⁵
^Curre^{nt Population Survey (CPS) Ann}^{ual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) data.}
Table B-2. Nuclear Family Income Relative to Poverty Among Families with
Children, by Family Type, 2004
^{Nuclear Family Income to P}^{overty Ratio}
^Less^Less^Less^Less^Less^3.00
^than^than^than^than^than^and
^Total^1.00^1.25^1.50^2.00^3.00^over
^Num^{ber (in}^1,00^0s)
^All^famil^ies^39,6⁸⁶^6,78⁵^8,52^{4 10,3}^{43 14,4}³⁶^21,2⁴⁸^18,4³⁸
^{Married-couple}
^families^26,7^{59 1,88}⁸^2,74^{0 3,68}^{5 6,03}⁰^10,8⁰¹^15,9⁵⁸
^Mother-only^families^10,4^{28 3,64}⁹^4,41^{8 5,17}^{1 6,62}²^8,37⁶^2,05²
^Father-only^families^2,49^{9 433}^{566 729}^1,09⁰^1,62⁸⁸⁷¹

^{Nuclear Family Income to P}^{overty Ratio}
^Less^Less^Less^Less^Less^3.00
^than^than^than^than^than^and
^Total^1.00^1.25^1.50^2.00^3.00^over
^{Cumulative per}^{cent distrib}^ution
^All^famil^ies^100.^{0% 17.1%}^{21.5% 26.1% 36.4%}^53.5%^46.5%
^{Married-couple}
^families^100.^0%^7.1%^{10.2% 13.8% 22.5%}^40.4%^59.6%
^Mother-only^families^100.^{0% 35.0%}^{42.4% 49.6% 63.5%}^80.3%^19.7%
^Father-only^families^100.^{0% 17.3%}^{22.7% 29.2% 43.6%}^65.2%^34.8%
^Composition
^All^famil^ies^100.^{0% 100.}^0%^100.^{0% 100.}^{0% 100.}^0%^100.^0%^100.^0%
^{Married-couple}^{67.4% 27.8%}^{32.1% 35.6% 41.8%}^50.8%^86.5%
^families
^Mother-only^families^{26.3% 53.8%}^{51.8% 50.0% 45.9%}^39.4%^11.1%
^Father-only^families^{6.3% 6.4%}^{6.6% 7.0% 7.6%}^7.7%^4.7%
^Source:^{Table pr}^epared^{by t}^he^{Congressional Research Service}^{based on analysis of U.S. Census}^Bureau²⁰⁰⁵
^Curre^{nt Population Survey (CPS) Ann}^{ual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) data.}

Table B-3. Earnings and Income Relative to Poverty based on Income Definition, Among Families with Children, 2004
^{Income So}^{urce Relative to Poverty}
^{Less than}^{Less than}^{Less than}^{Less than}^{Less than}^{3.00 and}
^Total^1.00^1.25^1.50^2.00^3.00^over
^{Married-couple families}
^Num^ber⁽ⁱⁿ^1,00^0s)
^Earnings^{of par}^{ent with g}^reatest^earnings^26,7⁵⁹^3,45⁶^4,92⁸^6,65³^10,5⁰⁵^16,6⁸⁸^10,0⁷¹
^{Plus: spouse’s earning}^s^26,7⁵⁹^2,66⁴^3,63⁶^4,69³^7,19⁹^12,0⁵⁹^14,7⁰⁰
^{Plus: other nuclear}^{family membe}^{rs’ earnings}^26,7⁵⁹^2,44¹^3,37¹^4,35⁹^6,80⁴^11,6¹⁶^15,1⁴³
^{Plus: other nuclear}^{family income}^26,7⁵⁹^1,88⁸^2,74⁰^3,68⁵^6,03⁰^10,8⁰¹^15,9⁵⁸
^{Plus: extended family membe}^{rs’ income (official Census}
^{poverty definition}^26,7⁵⁹^1,84⁸^2,72⁶^3,72⁶^6,09⁴^10,9⁰²^15,8⁵⁷
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33615}^Percent
^g/w^Earnings^{of par}^{ent with g}^reatest^earnings^100.^0%^12.9%^18.4%^24.9%^39.3%^62.4%^37.6%
^s^.or
^le^ak^{Plus: spouse’s earning}^s^100.^0%^10.0%^13.6%^17.5%^26.9%^45.1%^54.9%
^{Plus: other nuclear}^{family membe}^{rs’ earnings}^100.^0%^9.1%^12.6%^16.3%^25.4%^43.4%^56.6%
^://wiki^{Married-couple families (cont.)}
^h^ttp
^{Plus: other nuclear}^{family income}^100.^0%^7.1%^10.2%^13.8%^22.5%^40.4%^59.3%
^{Plus: extended family membe}^{rs’ income (official Census}
^poverty^definition^100.^0%^6.9%^10.2%^{13.9% 22.8% 40.7%}^59.3%
^{Mother-only families}
^Num^ber⁽ⁱⁿ^1,00^0s)
^Mother’s^ear^nings^10,4²⁸^5,48⁰^6,18⁵^6,82^{5 8,04}^{9 9,32}⁶^1,10²
^{Plus: other nuclear}^{family membe}^{rs’ earnings}^10,4²⁸^5,20²^5,91⁷^6,56³^7,78⁸^9,15⁴^1,27⁴
^{Plus: other nuclear}^{family income}^10,4²⁸^4,35⁹^5,11²^5,80⁸^7,17⁶^8,73⁴^1,69⁴
^{Plus: extended family membe}^{rs’ income (official Census}
^poverty^definition^10,4²⁸^3,64⁹^4,41⁸^5,17^{1 6,62}^{2 8,37}⁶^2,05²
^Percent

^{Income So}^{urce Relative to Poverty}
^{Less than}^{Less than}^{Less than}^{Less than}^{Less than}^{3.00 and}
^Total^1.00^1.25^1.50^2.00^3.00^over
^Mother’s^ear^nings^100.^0%^52.6%^59.3%^{65.4% 77.2% 89.4%}^10.6%
^{Plus: other nuclear}^{family membe}^{rs’ earnings}^100.^0%^49.9%^56.7%^62.9%^74.7%^87.8%^12.2%
^{Mother-only families (cont.)}
^{Plus: other nuclear}^{family income}^100.^0%^41.8%^49.0%^55.7%^68.8%^83.8%^16.2%
^{Plus: extended family membe}^{rs’ income (official Census}
^po^verty^definition^100.^0%^35.0%^42.4%^{49.6% 63.5% 80.3%}^19.7%
^{Father-only families}
^Num^ber⁽ⁱⁿ^1,00^0s)
^Father’s^earning^s^2,49⁹⁶⁷⁴⁸¹²^{977 1,38}^{8 1,85}¹⁶⁴⁹
^{Plus: other nuclear}^{family membe}^{rs’ earnings}^2,49⁹⁶⁴⁰⁷⁷⁸⁹³⁸^1,33³^1,77⁹⁷²⁰
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33615}^{Plus: other nuclear}^{family income}^2,49⁹⁵³⁷⁶⁷²⁸⁴⁹^1,22⁹^1,71³⁷⁸⁶
^g/w
^s^.or^{Plus: extended family membe}^{rs’ income (official Census}
^le^ak^poverty^definition^2,49⁹⁴³³⁵⁶⁶^{729 1,09}^{0 1,62}⁸⁸⁷¹
^Percent
^://wiki^Father’s^earning^s^100.^0%^27.0%^32.5%^{39.1% 55.5% 74.0%}^26.0%
^h^ttp
^{Plus: other nuclear}^{family membe}^{rs’ earnings}^100.^0%^25.6%^31.1%^37.5%^53.3%^71.2%^28.8%
^{Father-only families}
^{Plus: other nuclear}^{family income}^100.^0%^21.5%^26.9%^34.0%^49.2%^68.5%^31.5%
^{Plus: extended family membe}^{rs’ income (official Census}
^poverty^definition^100.^0%^17.3%^22.7%^{29.2% 43.6% 65.2%}^34.8%
^Source:^{Table pr}^epared^{by t}^he^{Congressional Research Service}^{based on analysis of U.S. Census}^Bureau²⁰^{05 C}^urre^{nt Pop}^{ulation Survey (CP}^{S) Annual Social and}
^{Economic Sup}^{plement (ASEC) da}^ta.

Table B-4. Hourly Earnings of Working Parents, by Parents’ Level of Educational Attainment, 2004
^{Hourly Earnin}^{gs Percentiles}
^{Level of Educational}^Attainment¹⁰^th²⁰^th³⁰^th⁴⁰^th^{Median 60}^th⁷⁰^th⁸⁰^th⁹⁰^th
^{Less tha}^{n H.S.}^$4.81^$6.25^$7.21^$8.33^$9.62^$11.0⁵^$12.5²^$15.3⁸^$20.0⁰
^{H.S. dipl}^{oma or equivalent}^$6.08^$7.84^$9.62^$11.2⁵^$12.8²^$14.9⁰^$17.3¹^$20.6⁰^$26.4⁴
^Some^college—no^degree^$6.39^{$8.79 $10.6}³^$12.6²^$14.6^{2 $16.8}^{3 $19.6}⁶^$24.0⁴^$31.2⁵
^Associates^degree^{$7.69 $10.0}⁰^$12.5^{0 $14.4}²^$16.8³^$19.2³^$22.5^{3 $26.4}^{4 $33.3}³
^Bachelors^degree^{$9.62 $13.3}³^$16.5^{4 $19.2}³^$22.8⁴^$26.4⁴^$31.2^{5 $37.9}^{8 $48.0}⁸
^Graduate^degre^e^$13.8^{9 $18.4}⁹^$21.8^{7 $25.4}⁸^$30.0⁰^$34.6²^$40.3^{8 $48.5}^{6 $67.3}¹
^Source:^{Table pr}^epared^{by t}^he^{Congressional Research Service}^{based on analysis of U.S. Census}^Bureau²⁰^{05 C}^urre^{nt Pop}^{ulation Survey (CP}^{S) Annual Social and}
^{Economic Sup}^{plement (ASEC) da}^ta.
^a Distribution, by Parent’s Age,^b 2004
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33615}Table B-5. Hourly Earnings
^g/w^{Hourly Earnin}^{gs Percentiles}
^s^.or^b^th^th^th^th^th^th^th^th
^le^ak^{Parent’s age}¹⁰²⁰³⁰⁴⁰^Median⁶⁰⁷⁰⁸⁰⁹⁰
^://wiki^{Married Couples}
^h^ttp^Under²⁵^{$6.11 $7.69 $8.75 $9.62}^$11.0⁶^$12.0²^$13.4⁶^$15.0⁰^$18.6⁸
²⁵^to²⁹^$7.69^{$9.83 $11.5}^{4 $13.0}⁴^$14.9^{6 $16.8}^{3 $19.2}³^$22.6^{0 $28.8}⁵
³⁰^to³⁴^{$8.75 $11.6}^{4 $14.4}^{2 $16.6}⁷^$19.2^{3 $21.6}^{3 $25.0}⁰^$30.2^{9 $38.4}⁶
³⁵^to³⁹^{$9.62 $12.9}^{8 $16.0}^{3 $18.7}⁴^$21.1^{5 $24.0}^{4 $28.8}⁵^$34.9^{7 $48.0}⁸
⁴⁰^to⁴⁴^$10.3^{2 $14.0}^{7 $17.1}^{3 $20.0}³^$23.5^{6 $26.9}^{2 $32.0}⁵^$38.4^{6 $51.9}²
⁴⁵^to⁴⁹^$10.7^{1 $14.4}^{2 $17.5}^{2 $20.7}⁷^$24.0^{4 $28.4}^{6 $33.6}⁵^$40.7^{4 $52.8}⁸
⁵⁰^a^nd^over^{$9.87 $13.9}^{4 $17.3}^{1 $21.2}⁶^$25.0^{0 $29.4}^{9 $35.2}⁴^$44.2^{3 $62.5}⁰
^{Mother-Only Families}
^Under²⁵^{$3.49 $4.81 $5.77 $6.73}^{$7.69 $8.58}^$10.0⁵^$12.0²^$16.3⁵
²⁵^to²⁹^{$4.77 $6.25 $7.50 $8.33}^$9.92^$11.4³^$12.9⁸^$15.3⁸^$19.7¹
³⁰^to³⁴^{$5.00 $6.87 $8.65 $9.62}^$11.0⁶^$12.5⁰^$14.5²^$17.3¹^$20.9⁴

^{Hourly Earnin}^{gs Percentiles}
^{Parent’s age}^b¹⁰^th²⁰^th³⁰^th⁴⁰^th^Median⁶⁰^th⁷⁰^th⁸⁰^th⁹⁰^th
³⁵^to³⁹^$5.29^$7.21^{$9.00 $10.0}⁰^$12.0^{2 $13.9}^{4 $15.8}⁷^$19.3^{3 $26.4}⁴
⁴⁰^to⁴⁴^$5.34^$7.14^{$9.13 $11.4}⁹^$13.0^{2 $15.3}^{8 $18.4}⁹^$22.0^{0 $29.6}²
^{Mother-Only Families (cont.)}
⁴⁵^to⁴⁹^$6.25^{$8.13 $10.1}^{0 $12.0}²^$13.9^{4 $16.8}^{3 $20.0}³^$24.2^{9 $31.2}⁵
⁵⁰^a^nd^over^$5.77^$7.05^{$8.65 $10.5}⁸^$13.7^{7 $16.6}^{3 $19.2}³^$24.0^{4 $34.0}⁰
^{Father-Only Families}
^Under²⁵^{$4.17 $6.25 $6.87 $8.20}^$9.38^$10.5⁸^$12.0²^$14.4²^$21.6³
²⁵^to²⁹^$6.41^{$8.17 $10.0}^{0 $11.3}⁶^$12.0^{2 $13.5}^{9 $15.3}⁸^$17.0^{9 $25.5}¹
³⁰^to³⁴^$6.25^$7.75^{$9.62 $11.5}⁴^$13.1^{8 $14.9}^{6 $18.1}⁵^$21.1^{5 $26.5}³
³⁵^to³⁹^{$7.69 $10.0}^{0 $11.5}^{4 $13.9}²^$16.6^{7 $19.0}^{7 $21.4}⁸^$25.4^{8 $35.9}⁴
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33615}⁴⁰^to⁴⁴^{$7.21 $11.0}^{6 $12.4}^{3 $13.9}⁴^$16.8^{3 $19.2}^{3 $24.0}⁴^$28.8^{5 $39.3}²
^g/w⁴⁵^to⁴⁹^{$8.24 $10.7}^{7 $13.2}^{2 $15.3}⁸^$17.8^{3 $21.6}^{3 $25.4}⁸^$31.2^{5 $43.2}⁷
^s^.or
^le^ak⁵⁰^a^nd^over^$7.21^{$8.65 $10.5}^{8 $12.8}²^$17.0^{9 $19.2}^{3 $24.0}⁴^$28.8^{5 $38.4}⁰
^://wiki^Source:^{Table pr}^epared^{by t}^he^{Congressional Research Service}^{based on analysis of U.S. Census}^Bureau²⁰^{05 C}^urre^{nt Pop}^{ulation Survey (CP}^{S) Annual Social and}^{Economic Sup}^{plement (ASEC) da}^ta.
^h^ttp
^a.^{Estimated hourly ea}^rnings^based^{on ann}^{ual earning}^{s of par}^{ent divided by an}^{nual hou}^{rs worked.}
^b.^{Age of the pa}^rent^{with the}^greate^{r earning}^s.

Table B-6. Hours Worked During the Year by Fathers and Mothers, by Family Type,
2004
^{Hours w}^{orked du}^{ring the year}
^No
^work^{0 < to}^1,56^{0 to}^2,08⁰
^during^{< 1,56}⁰^{< 2,08}⁰^{or m}^ore
^Total^{the year}^hours^hours^hours
^Num^{ber (in}^1,00^0s)
^{Fathers in ma}^{rried couples}^26,7⁵⁹^1,30⁰^1,76⁸^2,15⁵^21,5³⁶
^{Mothers in}^{married cou}^ples^26,7⁵⁹^7,81³^6,31³^3,27⁵^9,35⁷
^Lone^mothers^10,4²⁸^2,32⁹^2,25⁵^1,50⁰^4,34⁵
^Lone^fathe^rs^2,49⁹²⁴⁸³²²²⁷⁴^1,65⁵
^Percent
^{Fathers in ma}^{rried couples}^100.^{0% 4.9%}^6.6%^8.1%^80.5%
^{Mothers in}^{married cou}^ples^100.^0%^29.2%^23.6%^12.2%^35.0%
^Lone^mothers^100.^0%^22.3%^21.6%^14.4%^41.7%
^Lone^fathe^rs^100.^0%^9.9%^12.9%^11.0%^66.2%
^Source:^{Table pr}^epared^{by t}^he^{Congressional Research Service}^{based on analysis of U.S. Census}^Bureau²⁰⁰⁵
^Curre^{nt Population Survey (CPS) Ann}^{ual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) data.}
Table B-7. Annual Hours Worked During the Year by Fathers and Mothers in
Married-Couple Families, 2004
^{Mothers’ Labor Fo}^{rce Attac}^hment
^(Annu^{al Hours}^Worked)
^{No wo}^rk^{0 < to}^1,56^{0 to}^2,08^{0 or}
^{Fathers’ Labor For}^{ce Attach}^ment^during^{< 1,56}⁰^{< 2,08}⁰^more
^(Annu^{al Hours}^Worked)^Total^{the year}^hours^hours^hours
^Num^{ber (in}^1,00^0s)
^Total^26,7⁵⁹^7,81³^6,31³^3,27⁵^9,35⁷
^{No work during t}^{he year}^1,30⁰⁴²²¹⁸³¹⁴⁸⁵⁴⁸
^{0 < to <}^1,56^{0 hou}^rs^1,76⁸⁵⁰⁵³⁹⁸²²⁰⁶⁴⁴
^1,56^{0 to < 2,0}⁸⁰^hour^s^2,15⁵⁶²¹⁵²⁸³⁸¹⁶²⁵
^2,08^{0 or more}^hours^21,5³⁶^6,26⁵^5,20⁵^2,52⁶^7,54⁰
^Percent
^Total^100.^0%^29.2%^23.6%^12.2%^35.0%
^{No work during t}^{he year}^4.9%^1.6%^0.7%^0.6%^2.0%
^{0 < to <}^1,56^{0 hou}^rs^6.6%^1.9%^1.5%^0.8%^2.4%

^{Mothers’ Labor Fo}^{rce Attac}^hment
^(Annu^{al Hour}^{s Worked)}
^{No wo}^rk^{0 < to}^1,56^{0 to}^2,08^{0 or}
^{Fathers’ Labor For}^{ce Attach}^ment^during^{< 1,56}⁰^{< 2,08}⁰^more
^(Annu^{al Hours}^Worked)^Total^{the year}^hours^hours^hours
^1,56^{0 to < 2,0}⁸⁰^hour^s^8.1%^2.3%^2.0%^1.4%^2.3%
^2,08^{0 or more}^hours^80.5%^23.4%^19.5%^9.4%^28.2%
^Source:^{Table pr}^epared^{by t}^he^{Congressional Research Service}^{based on analysis of U.S. Census}^Bureau²⁰⁰⁵
^Curre^{nt Population Survey (CPS) Ann}^{ual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) data.}

Table B-8. Parent’s Earnings Relative to Poverty, by Parent’s Work Attachment During the Year and Family Type, 2004
^Parent’^{s Earnings to P}^{overty Ratio}^a
^{Less than}^{3.00 and}
^Total^1.00^{1.00 to}^1.2⁴^{1.25 to}^1.4⁹^{1.50 to}^1.9⁹^{2.00 to}^2.9⁹^over
^{Married-couple families}
^Num^ber⁽ⁱⁿ^1,00^0s)
^Total^25,7⁵⁹^3,45^{6 1,47}^{2 1,72}⁶^3,85^{1 6,18}⁴^10,0⁷¹
^Non^worker⁴⁴⁷^{447 0 0}^{0 0}⁰
^Part-year,^part-time³⁶⁵^{270 14}⁸^{24 22}²⁷
^Part-year,^full-time^2,14⁷^{662 186 179}^{301 389}⁴²⁹
^Full-year,^part-time⁶³¹^{252 48 51}^{72 83}¹²⁵
^Full-year,^full-time^23,1⁶⁹^1,82^{5 1,22}^{4 1,48}⁸^3,45^{4 5,69}⁰^9,48⁹
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33615}^Percent
^g/w
^s^.or^Total^100.^0%^100.^{0% 100.}^{0% 100.}^0%^100.^{0% 100.}^0%^100.^0%
^le^ak^Non^worker^1.7%^{12.9% 0.0% 0.0%}^{0.0% 0.0%}^0.0%
^://wiki^Part-year,^part-time^1.4%^{7.8% 1.0% 0.5%}^{0.6% 0.3%}^0.3%
^h^ttp^{Married-couple families (cont.)}
^Part-year,^full-time^8.0%^{19.2$ 12.7% 10.4%}^7.8%^6.3%^4.3%
^Full-year,^part-time^2.4%^{7.3% 3.3% 3.0%}^{1.9% 1.3%}^1.2%
^Full-year,^full-time^86.6%^{52.8% 83.1% 86.2%}^{89.7% 92.0%}^94.2%
^{Lone mothers}
^Num^ber⁽ⁱⁿ^1,00^0s)
^Total^10,4²⁸^5,48^{0 704 640}^1,22⁴^1,27⁷^1,10²
^Non^worker^2,32⁹^2,32^{9 0 0}^{0 0}⁰
^Part-year,^part-time⁷⁹¹^{740 17 14}⁹⁷⁵
^Part-year,^full-time^1,39⁸⁸⁸⁶^{124 92}^{117 99}⁷⁹

^{Parent’s Earnings to P}^{overty Ratio}^a
^{Less than}^{3.00 and}
^Total^1.00^{1.00 to}^1.2⁴^{1.25 to}^1.4⁹^{1.50 to}^1.9⁹^{2.00 to}^2.9⁹^over
^Full-year,^part-time⁹⁰⁴^{586 92 57}^{75 46}⁴⁸
^Full-year,^full-time^5,00⁶^{940 471 477}^1,02³^1,12⁵⁹⁶⁹
^Percent
^Total^100.^0%^100.^{0% 100.}^{0% 100.}^0%^100.^{0% 100.}^0%^100.^0%
^Non^worker^22.3%^{42.5% 0.0% 0.0%}^{0.0% 0.0%}^0.0%
^{Lone mothers}^(cont).
^Part-year,^part-time^7.6%^{13.5% 2.5% 2.2%}^{0.7% 0.5%}^0.5%
^Part-year,^full-time^13.4%^{16.2% 17.6% 14.3%}^9.6%^7.8%^7.2%
^Full-year,^part-time^8.7%^10.7%^{13.0% 8.9%}^{6.1% 3.6%}^4.4%
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33615}^Full-year,^full-time^48.0%^{17.2% 66.9% 74.6%}^{83.5% 88.1%}^88.0%
^g/w^{Lone fathe}^rs
^s^.or^Num^ber⁽ⁱⁿ^1,00^0s)
^le^ak
^Total^2,49⁹^{674 138 166}^{411 463}⁶⁴⁹
^://wiki^Non^worker²⁴⁸^{248 0 0}^{0 0}⁰
^h^ttp^Part-year,^part-time⁷⁷^{69 2 1}^{1 2}²
^Part-year,^full-time³⁸⁵^{166 33 40}^{61 45}⁴⁰
^Full-year,^part-time⁶¹^{32 2 4}^{6 7}¹⁰
^Full-year,^full-time^1,72⁸^{159 100 120}^{343 408}⁵⁹⁷
^Percent
^Total^100.^0%^100.^{0% 100.}^{0% 100.}^0%^100.^{0% 100.}^0%^100.^0%
^{Lone fathe}^{rs (cont).}
^Non^worker^9.6%^{36.7% 0.0% 0.0%}^{0.0% 0.0%}^0.0%
^Part-year,^part-time^3.1%^{10.3% 1.2% 0.8%}^{0.3% 0.4%}^0.3%
^Part-year,^full-time^15.4%^{24.6% 24.1% 24.1%}^14.8%^9.8%^6.1%

^{Parent’s Earnings to P}^{overty Ratio}^a
^{Less than}^{3.00 and}
^Total^1.00^{1.00 to}^1.2⁴^{1.25 to}^1.4⁹^{1.50 to}^1.9⁹^{2.00 to}^2.9⁹^over
^Full-year,^part-time^2.4%^{4.7% 1.7% 2.6%}^{1.4% 1.5%}^1.5%
^Full-year,^full-time^69.1%^{23.6% 73.0% 72.5%}^{83.5% 88.3%}^92.1%
^Source:^{Table pr}^epar^ed^{by t}^he^{Congressional Research Service}^{based on analysis of U.S. Census}^Bureau²⁰^{05 C}^urre^{nt Pop}^{ulation Survey (CPS) Annual So}^{cial and}
^{Economic Sup}^{plement (ASEC) da}^ta.
^a.^Earnings^{and work stat}^{us of t}^{he p}^{arent with t}^{he great}^{er ear}^{nings in}^{married-couple families.}

ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33615}
^g/w
^s^.or
^le^ak
^://wiki
^h^ttp

Table B-9. Nuclear Family Poverty Status Based on Parents’ Earnings And Parents’
Job Attachment: Married-Couple Families, 2004
^{Parents’ Work Attachment}
^{Only one}
^{No full-time}^full-time^{Two f}^ull-time
^full-year^full-year^full-year
^working^working^working
^Total^parent^parent^parents
^Total^26,7⁵⁹^2,78⁸^15,1⁵⁴^8,81⁷
^{Less tha}^{n 1.0}⁰^2,66⁴^1,32¹^1,26⁷⁷⁷
^1.00^to^1.24⁹⁷²¹⁸³⁷¹¹⁷⁸
^1.25^to^1.49^1,05⁷¹⁸⁰⁷⁶⁰¹¹⁷
^1.50^to^1.99^2,50⁶²⁸²^1,78⁰⁴⁴⁴
^2.00^to^2.99^4,86⁰³⁰¹^3,11²^1,44⁷
^{3.00 a}^{nd over}^14,7⁰⁰⁵²¹^7,52⁴^6,65⁵
^{Total (percent by}^row)^100.^0%^10.4%^56.6%^33.0%
^{Less tha}^{n 1.0}⁰^100.^0%^49.6%^47.5%^2.9%
^1.00^to^1.24^100.^0%^18.9%^73.1%^8.0%
^1.25^to^1.49^100.^0%^17.0%^71.9%^11.1%
^1.50^to^1.99^100.^0%^11.3%^71.0%^17.7%
^2.00^to^2.99^100.^0%^6.2%^64.0%^29.8%
^{3.00 a}^{nd over}^100.^0%^3.5%^51.2%^45.3%
^{Total (percent by}^column)^100.^0%^100.^0%^100.^0%^100.^0%
^{Less tha}^{n 1.0}⁰^10.0%^47.4%^8.4%^0.9%
^1.00^to^1.24^3.6%^6.6%^4.7%^0.9%
^1.25^to^1.49^4.0%^6.4%^5.0%^1.3%
^1.50^to^1.99^9.4%^10.1%^11.7%^5.0%
^2.00^to^2.99^18.2%^10.8%^20.5%^16.4%
^{3.00 a}^{nd over}^54.9%^18.7%^49.7%^75.5%
^Source:^{Table pr}^epared^{by t}^he^{Congressional Research Service}^{based on analysis of U.S. Census}^Bureau²⁰⁰⁵
^Curre^{nt Population Survey (CPS) Ann}^{ual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) data.}

Table B-10. Nuclear Family Income Relative to Poverty by Parent’s Age,^a by Family Type, 2004
^{Nuclear Family Income Rela}^tive^{to Poverty}
^Total^{Less than 1.00}^1.00^{to 1.2}⁴^1.25^{to 1.4}⁹^1.50^{to 1.9}⁹^2.00^{to 2.9}⁹^{3.00 and over}
^{Married-couple families}^a
^Num^{ber (in}^1,00^0s)
^Total^26,7⁵⁹^1,88⁸^2,74^{0 3,68}^{5 6,03}⁰^10,8⁰¹^15,9⁵⁸
^Under^age²⁵⁵³⁶¹¹³^{164 212 309 447}⁸⁹
^{Age 25 to}²⁹^2,19⁸²⁶⁴⁴¹⁷⁵⁴⁹⁸⁴⁶^1,41⁰⁷⁸⁸
^{Age 30 to}³⁴^4,02⁷³⁴⁷⁵²⁰⁶⁹⁹^1,15⁵^1,96⁷^2,06⁰
^{Age 35 to}³⁹^5,21⁹³⁶⁷⁵³²⁷²⁰^1,16⁰^2,14⁰^3,07⁹
^{Age 40 a}^{nd older}^14,7⁷⁹⁷⁹⁷^1,10⁶^1,50⁵^2,55⁹^4,83⁷^9,94²
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33615}^Percent
^g/w^Total^100.^0%^7.1%^{10.2% 13.8% 22.5% 40.4%}^59.6%
^s^.or^Under^age²⁵^100.^0%^21.0%^{30.6% 39.6% 57.6% 83.4%}^16.6%
^le^ak
^Age²⁵^to²⁹^100.^0%^12.0%^{19.0% 25.0% 38.5% 64.2%}^35.8%
^://wiki^{Married-couple families}^a^(cont.)
^h^ttp^Age³⁰^to³⁴^100.^0%^8.6%^{12.9% 17.4% 28.7% 48.9%}^51.1%
^Age³⁵^to³⁹^100.^0%^7.0%^{10.2% 13.8% 22.2% 41.0%}^59.0%
^{Age 40 a}^{nd older}^100.^0%^5.4%^7.5%^10.2%^17.3%^32.7%^67.3%
^{Lone-mother families}
^Num^ber⁽ⁱⁿ^1,00^0s)
^Total^10,4²⁸^4,35⁹^5,11^{2 5,80}^{8 7,17}^{6 8,73}⁴^1,69⁴
^Under^age²⁵^1,70²^1,21³^1,32^{0 1,42}^{5 1,56}^{7 1,64}¹⁶¹
^Age²⁵^to²⁹^1,73⁴⁸⁶⁸^1,00^{2 1,12}^{6 1,35}^{9 1,59}³¹⁴¹
^Age³⁰^to³⁴^1,80⁵⁷⁹⁴^{941 1,06}^{4 1,31}^{7 1,61}²¹⁹³
^{Age 35 to}³⁹^1,82⁰⁶¹³⁷⁴⁷⁹⁰²^1,17⁴^1,47⁹³⁴⁰
^{Age 40 a}^{nd older}^3,36⁸⁸⁷²^1,10¹^1,29¹^1,76⁰^2,40⁹⁹⁵⁹

^{Nuclear Family Income Rela}^tive^{to Poverty}
^Total^{Less than 1.00}^1.00^{to 1.2}⁴^1.25^{to 1.4}⁹^1.50^{to 1.9}⁹^2.00^{to 2.9}⁹^{3.00 and over}
^Percent
^Total^100.^0%^41.8%^{49.0% 55.7% 68.8% 83.8%}^16.2%
^Under^age²⁵^100.^0%^71.3%^{77.6% 83.8% 92.1% 96.4%}^3.5%
^{Lone-mother families (cont.)}
^Age²⁵^to²⁹^100.^0%^50.1%^{57.8% 64.9% 78.4% 91.9%}^8.1%
^Age³⁰^to³⁴^100.^0%^44.0%^{52.1% 59.0% 73.0% 89.3%}^10.7%
^Age³⁵^to³⁹^100.^0%^33.7%^{41.1% 49.6% 64.5% 81.3%}^18.7%
^{Age 40 a}^{nd older}^100.^0%^25.9%^32.7%^38.3%^52.3%^71.5%^28.5%
^{Lone-father families}
^Num^ber⁽ⁱⁿ^1,00^0s)
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33615}^Total^2,49⁹⁵³⁷⁶⁷²^{849 1,22}^{9 1,71}³⁷⁸⁶
^g/w^Under^age²⁵²³⁵⁹⁷^{112 141 194 224}¹²
^s^.or
^le^ak^Age²⁵^to²⁹³⁷⁸¹⁰²^{131 155 227 309}⁶⁹
^Age³⁰^to³⁴³⁸⁷⁹²^{115 150 209 279}¹⁰⁷
^://wiki^Age³⁵^to³⁹⁴³⁷⁷⁹^{95 120 184 278}¹⁵⁹
^h^ttp
^{Age 40 a}^{nd older}^1,06²¹⁶⁸²²⁰²⁸³⁴¹⁵⁶²⁴⁴³⁸
^Percent
^Total^100.^0%^21.5%^{26.9% 34.0% 49.2% 68.5%}^31.5%
^{Lone-father families}^(cont.)
^Under^age²⁵^100.^0%^41.1%^{47.5% 60.0% 82.3% 95.0%}^5.0%
^Age²⁵^to²⁹^100.^0%^26.9%^{34.7% 40.9% 60.1% 81.6%}^18.4%

^{Nuclear Family Income Rela}^tive^{to Poverty}
^Total^{Less than 1.00}^1.00^{to 1.2}⁴^1.25^{to 1.4}⁹^1.50^{to 1.9}⁹^2.00^{to 2.9}⁹^{3.00 and over}
^Age³⁰^to³⁴^100.^0%^23.8%^{29.8% 38.9% 54.0% 72.3%}^27.7%
^Age³⁵^to³⁹^100.^0%^18.1%^{21.7% 27.5% 42.0% 63.5%}^36.5%
^{Age 40 a}^{nd older}^100.^0%^15.8%^20.7%^26.7%^39.1%^58.7%^41.3%
^Source:^{Table pr}^epared^{by t}^he^{Congressional Research Service}^{based on analysis of U.S. Census}^Bureau²⁰^{05 C}^urre^{nt Pop}^{ulation Survey (CP}^{S) Annual Social and}
^{Economic Sup}^{plement (ASEC) da}^ta.
^a.^{Age of the older pare}^{nt in ma}^rrie^{d-couple families.}

ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33615}
^g/w
^s^.or
^le^ak
^://wiki
^h^ttp

^T^h^om^as^G^a^be ^Gen^e^Fal^k
^Specialis^{t i}ⁿ^{Social P}^o^lic^y^Specialis^{t i}ⁿ^{Social P}^o^lic^y
^t^g^abe@^crs^.^l^o^c.^g^o^v^,^7-⁷³⁵⁷^g^f^a^l^k@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v^,^7-⁷³⁴⁴