As the poverty line moves, no wonder employers are under pressure to pay more

The face of poverty is shifting. Where once it conjured only thoughts of the homeless, the vulnerable and those squeezing a living out of scraps from the state, it now extends its grip more and more to those who take home a hard-earned paycheque at the end of each month too.

Fifty-five per cent of those classed as living in poverty in the UK during 2014/15 were from a working family, according to a provocative report released today by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. This leaves 3.8 million workers earning less than 60% of average income, or less than £15,000 per year. Shockingly, that’s two million more working people in poverty than 10 years ago.

The findings make for deeply uncomfortable reading. Not only in bringing far closer for all of us the prospect of slipping slowly and inexplicably into poverty ourselves, but for the UK’s employers doling out what amounts to poverty pay. Though the JRF doesn’t reveal those sectors leaving their employees in dire straits, there’s little doubt many will be working across the notoriously low-paid roles in retail, manufacturing and horticulture.

Today’s shocking figures should spur on more of these businesses to join the swelling ranks of living wage employers paying at least £8.45 per hour, says the Living Wage Foundation. “It’s the right thing to do for workers and for business,” insists the charity’s director Katherine Chapman.

Though the impact of the chancellor’s own national living wage rate of £7.20 upon this new face of poverty won’t be factored in until next year, Chapman and all other advocates of higher hourly rates will be keeping everything crossed it makes good on their promises. If higher minimum pay really does cut poverty dramatically, the pressure on major employers in food and drink to go even further and pay the LWF rate will only get stronger.

Critics who warn higher pay isn’t a magic bullet will be lying in wait if it doesn’t. Poverty is far more complex, they argue. Working mothers might be restricted to part-time work thanks to eye-wateringly expensive childcare costs. Young people might be trapped on zero-hour contracts. Or the cost of rent might’ve skyrocketed beyond any feasible pay rise. Less clear-cut and more creative measures are needed to tackle these scenarios, they say.

And they might have a point. But while a 24-year-old father putting in 40 hours at his local supermarket or factory is still taking home £14,456 per year, I doubt anyone will listen.