Most public conversations about economic hardship begin with the word poverty. It’s an essential discussion — but it no longer tells the whole story of what working families are experiencing.
A growing number of Canadians are not poor by official measures, yet they are not secure. Recognizing this helps you understand how many families live in the space between surviving and living comfortably — not luxuriously, just without constant financial strain.
Naming that space matters. Not to assign blame, but to better understand how today’s systems intersect with everyday life.
Two measures, two realities
Canada’s primary poverty measure, the Low-Income Measure, places roughly 10 to 12 percent of Canadians below the poverty line. These households face absolute deprivation and require focused support.
A living wage looks at something different: what a household realistically needs to cover basic costs — housing, food, transportation, childcare, taxes — and participate modestly in community life, assuming full-time work and restrained spending.
In New Brunswick, the living wage for a family of four with both parents working is approximately $24 to $26 per hour, depending on the community. The minimum wage remains far below that threshold.
Between those two figures lies a significant and often overlooked group.
When we look at households, not just wages
We often hear that 40 to 45 percent of workers in New Brunswick earn less than a living wage, a pattern similar to that across Canada. But when we analyze household income, combining multiple wages and supports, the picture of financial insecurity becomes clearer, revealing a broader scope of household vulnerability.
When we view income data at the household level, three broad groups emerge:
- About 10–12 percent of households live below the poverty line.
- An estimated 25–35 percent live above poverty but below proper stability — able to manage day-to-day expenses, but with little resilience.
The remaining 55–65 percent meet or exceed living-wage benchmarks, though even here comfort varies widely. Recognizing that this middle group often faces unpredictable expenses highlights how household instability can ripple through community health and productivity.
It is the middle group — neither poor nor secure — that deserves closer attention.
Why “meeting” a living wage often isn’t enough
Living-wage calculations assume a predictable world:
- Stable schedules
- Reliable school calendars
- Limited unpaid caregiving disruptions
- Childcare that aligns neatly with work hours
Many families say their lived experience no longer fits that model.
In practice, to live comfortably — meaning without chronic stress — both parents often need to earn a living wage. Life’s unpredictability quickly consumes any margin that exists on paper.
When small changes create real pressure
This becomes clearer when we consider decisions that are reasonable on their own but costly in combination.
For example, adding an extra professional development (PD) day to school calendars may seem administratively minor. However, for families living near the line, it introduces a recurring dilemma:
- One parent misses a day of work, often unpaid
or
- The family pays for short-term childcare, typically at higher rates
Over a school year, that’s roughly ten added disruptions — each one quietly eroding an already thin margin.
No one is at fault here. Education systems need training time. Workplaces require reliability. Childcare providers face their own constraints.
But the economic impact doesn’t vanish. It accumulates — at the household level.
What this tells us
This is not a question of individual responsibility versus social services.
Working families are already doing their part — budgeting carefully, working full-time, making trade-offs. Social services respond to poverty and crisis, not the cumulative strain created by everyday disruptions in working households.
What we are seeing instead is misalignment: systems that make sense independently but, together, ask families to shoulder more instability than living-wage assumptions allow. This understanding can inspire you to advocate for change that eases household fragility.
The result isn’t failure. It’s fragility. Recognizing this shared vulnerability can motivate you to support policies that strengthen household stability for all.
An invitation to look more closely
Families living in this in-between space rarely qualify for assistance. They pay full market costs and live one unexpected expense away from trouble. They are not asking for luxury — only for breathing room.
When a third of households live that way, the issue extends beyond personal finance. It affects health, productivity, and community trust.
Recognizing this is not about blame. It is about clarity.
Before we discuss solutions, we need to agree on what is actually happening — and how many working families are carrying far more strain than official statistics suggest.
Jay Remer was raised in the United States and emigrated to Canada roughly 30 years ago. Since then, I have been involved in the writers’ community and the hospitality industry. I live in Saint Andrews, NB, and look forward to the day when healthy, civil debates bear more compassionate outcomes. Please feel free to send your questions: jayremer@chco.tv
