![current week number 2016 current week number 2016](https://1lvsv110hy4z48o1ve2jv19z-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/1-1.png)
The working-poor rate also continued to be higher for women, at 5.8 percent, than for men, at 4.2 percent, ( table 2).
![current week number 2016 current week number 2016](https://s31242.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/awards-1024x509.jpg)
Working-poor rate of people in the labor force for 27 weeks or more, 1986–2016 YearĪmong those who were in the labor force for 27 weeks or more in 2016, the number of women classified as working poor (4.1 million) was higher than that of men (3.4 million). For family members, the poverty threshold is determined by their family’s total income for individuals not living in families, their personal income is used as the determinant.Ĭhart 1. (For a detailed description of the source of the data and an explanation of the concepts and definitions used in this report, see the technical notes.) The specific income thresholds used to determine people’s poverty status vary, depending on whether the individuals are living with family members or are living alone or with nonrelatives. These data were collected in the 2017 Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey. This report presents data on the relationship between labor force activity and poverty status in 2016 for workers and their families. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey (CPS), Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). Poverty status of people and primary families in the labor force for 27 weeks or more, 2007–16ġ Includes individuals in families, not shown separately.Ģ Primary families with at least one member in the labor force for more than half the year. Families maintained by women were twice as likely as families maintained by men to be living below the poverty level. (See table 4.)Īmong families with at least one member in the labor force for 27 weeks or more, those with children under 18 years old were about 5 times as likely as those without children to live in poverty. Individuals who were employed in service occupations continued to be more likely to be among the working poor than those employed in other major occupational groups. Among those with less than a high school diploma, 13.7 percent of those who were in the labor force for at least 27 weeks were classified as working poor, compared with 1.4 percent of college graduates. The likelihood of being classified as working poor diminishes as workers attain higher levels of education. In addition, Blacks or African Americans and Hispanics or Latinos 2 continued to be about twice as likely as Whites and Asians to be among the working poor. Women were more likely than men to be among the working poor.
#CURRENT WEEK NUMBER 2016 FULL#
Among people in the labor force for 27 weeks or more, 3.1 percent of those usually employed full time were classified as working poor, compared with 12.2 percent of part-time workers ( table 1). (See table A, chart 1, and table 1.) Highlights from the 2016 dataįull-time workers continued to be much less likely to be among the working poor than were part-time workers. In 2016, the working-poor rate-the ratio of the working poor to all individuals in the labor force for at least 27 weeks-was 4.9 percent, down 0.7 percentage point from the previous year. The working poor are people who spent at least 27 weeks in the labor force (that is, working or looking for work) but whose incomes still fell below the poverty level. 1 (See the technical notes section for examples of poverty levels.) Although the poor were primarily children and adults who had not participated in the labor force during the year, 7.6 million individuals were among the “working poor” in 2016, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics this measure was down from 2015. Census Bureau, about 40.6 million people, or 12.7 percent of the nation’s population, lived below the poverty level. Subscribe to BLS Reports A profile of the working poor, 2016