In late November 2025, Michael W. Green, chief strategist and portfolio manager at Simplify Asset Management, published a Substack essay arguing that a family of four needs roughly $136,500 a year to cover basic essentials, including housing, child care, food, transportation, and healthcare. That figure sits more than four times above the official U.S. poverty threshold set by the Department of Health and Human Services, which stands at $32,150 for a family of four. The piece spread fast. Within days, it had been covered by The Washington Post, CNN, Fox Business, and dozens of financial commentators across social media.
The family budget threshold 2024 debate that Green ignited is not just an argument about math. It is a confrontation with a question that millions of American families wrestle with every month: why does earning a good wage still feel like barely enough? To answer that, you first need to understand where the poverty line comes from and why Green believes it has been broken for decades.
The federal poverty level (FPL) is a dollar figure the U.S. government uses to decide who qualifies for assistance programs like Medicaid, SNAP (the food stamps program), and housing subsidies. For a family or household of four persons living in one of the 48 contiguous states, the poverty guideline for 2024 is $31,200. Families who earn less than that figure are considered poor. Those who earn above it are not, at least by the government’s count. The problem, according to Green and many economists who study poverty measurement, is that the formula used to generate that number was designed in 1963 and has never been fundamentally updated.
Where the $32,150 Number Comes From
Green explained how the poverty line formula dates back to 1963, when Mollie Orshansky, a Social Security Administration economist, looked for a way to measure “income inadequacy.” Orshansky’s method was practical but crude. The government estimated the cost of a bare-bones food diet and multiplied it by three, because food was about one-third of a typical family’s budget back then. Every year since, that original number has simply been updated for inflation.
Related Videos:
That approach made a reasonable kind of sense in the early 1960s. Housing was relatively cheap. A family could rent a decent apartment or buy a home on a single income. Healthcare was provided by employers and cost relatively little. Childcare did not really exist as a market – mothers stayed home, family helped, or neighbors watched each other’s kids. The formula was not meant to describe a comfortable life. In her January 1965 article, Orshansky presented the poverty thresholds as a measure of income inadequacy – “if it is not possible to state unequivocally ‘how much is enough,’ it should be possible to assert with confidence how much, on average, is too little.” She was drawing a floor.
The problem is that the floor was drawn based on a budget structure that no longer exists. In 2024, food at home is no longer 33% of household spending. For most families, it is 5 to 7 percent. Yet the poverty line formula still treats food as the anchor. According to the official poverty measure used by the federal government, 19.5 percent of Americans were poor in 1963, falling to 10.6 percent in 2024. Whether that decline reflects real progress or a broken yardstick is precisely what Green set out to challenge.
What the Michael Green Substack Analysis Actually Argues
Michael Green, Chief Strategist and Portfolio Manager at Simplify Asset Management, wrote a provocative Substack essay titled “Part 1: My Life Is A Lie,” which is sparking a debate among economists and raising awareness of the affordability crisis. The Substack post appeared on November 23, 2025, and was called “My Life is a Lie: How a Broken Benchmark Quietly Broke America.”
Green’s central argument rests on flipping Orshansky’s own logic against itself. If the poverty formula worked by multiplying the minimum food budget by three – because food was one-third of spending – then the same method applied to today’s spending patterns produces a radically different number. Housing now consumes 35 to 45 percent of family budgets. Healthcare takes 15 to 25 percent. Childcare, for families with young children, can cost 20 to 40 percent. Food is no longer the biggest line item. It is often one of the smallest. If you keep Orshansky’s logic but update the food share to reflect today’s reality, the multiplier is no longer three. It becomes sixteen.
Green argued that applying Orshansky’s logic with modern spending patterns would yield a poverty threshold between $130,000 and $150,000. His middle-ground figure, widely reported in media coverage, landed at approximately $136,500. That is more than four times the federal poverty line of $32,150, and well above the median household income in most states. According to Green’s math, much of the country is living in what he calls the “valley of death”: earning too much for benefits, too little for stability
Read More: From Steady Jobs to Side Hustles: The Age of Passive Income and the ‘Polygamous Worker’
How Much Does a Family of Four Need to Live Comfortably?
This is one of the most searched questions Americans type into a browser on a slow Tuesday evening, and the honest answer is: it depends heavily on where you live. But Green’s $136,500 family budget threshold gives a useful framework, even if the exact number is contested.
Related Videos:
On Fox Business, host Charles Payne ran through Green’s core numbers: childcare at $32,000, housing at $23,000, food at nearly $15,000, transportation at nearly $15,000, healthcare at nearly $11,000, and other essentials at $22,000 – before taxes. Stack those up, and you arrive close to Green’s final threshold. Green himself clarified himself in an interview with Charles Pyne on Fox Business: “I want to just be clear that that $140,000 doesn’t mean you are literally poor… What I’m describing there is that’s really the threshold at which you can cover all of the expenses without government assistance and start saving.” That is the family financial threshold Green is describing – not destitution, but financial independence from government support and the ability to begin building any kind of future.
The middle-class budget breakdown Green is pointing to captures a real friction in American financial life. Families earning $65,000 to $90,000 a year often find themselves above the cutoff for subsidized healthcare, food assistance, and childcare support – but well below the income level at which those costs feel manageable. As families move from poverty into the lower middle class, usually earning between about $40,000 and $100,000, they lose access to safety net programs like food stamps, housing subsidies, or Medicaid. Still, their wages do not keep up with the rising costs of housing, healthcare, childcare, and transportation. As a result, climbing the economic ladder can actually make families worse off financially because the loss of benefits outweighs the income gains.
What Is Four Times the Federal Poverty Level for a Family?
For context on where the federal poverty line comparison stands numerically: four times the 2024 federal poverty level for a family of four works out to approximately $124,800 to $128,600, depending on which version of the guidelines you use. For a family of four with two children, the official poverty threshold was $31,812 in 2024. Multiply that by four, and you get $127,248 – meaningfully below Green’s $136,500 figure, though in the same ballpark.
What does four times the poverty line actually mean in practice? Federally, it matters because income between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level qualifies families for premium tax credits that lower monthly premiums for a Marketplace health insurance plan. Cross the 400% line and certain subsidy programs phase out entirely. This is part of the architecture that creates Green’s “valley of death” – the zone where earning more triggers benefit losses faster than the extra income compensates.
The federal poverty level is also routinely updated for price changes. These annual updates account for the increase in the Census Bureau’s current official poverty thresholds by the relevant percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers. The 2024 guidelines reflected the 4.1 percent price increase between calendar years 2022 and 2023. Critics of Green’s argument point to this annual CPI adjustment as evidence that the poverty line is not as frozen as he implies.
What Income Is Four Times the Federal Poverty Level?
Straight arithmetic: four times the 2024 HHS poverty guideline for a family of four – set at $31,200 – equals $124,800. That 2025 figure sits at $32,150, making four times the federal poverty line approximately $128,600 for a family of four in 2025. Green’s proposed $136,500 threshold exceeds even that benchmark. It is not just four times the poverty line; it pushes closer to 4.3 times.
Meanwhile, the income that the typical American family actually earns sits well below Green’s threshold. Americans saw their incomes rise in 2024, with the median household income hitting $83,730, according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates released in September 2025. That gap between $83,730 and $136,500 is the heart of the argument. If Green’s budget floor is correct even in rough terms, then the median American family earns somewhere between 38% and 61% less than what is needed to cover basic expenses and begin saving.
Green actually argues the new poverty threshold is $140,000. Since the typical household only makes a little over $80,000 a year in income, that means roughly two-thirds of Americans would fall below his proposed line. This is where economists start pushing back.
Where Critics Say the Math Goes Wrong
The debate around Michael Green’s Substack analysis produced some of the most detailed economic rebuttals seen in a long time, and not all of them were kind.
Noah Smith, an economic commentator and writer, called Green’s claim “totally off-base” and “out of touch with reality” in a Substack rebuttal. “The whole idea that more than half of Americans are poor doesn’t fit with anything we know about the lifestyles that typical Americans actually live,” Smith argued. Economist Tyler Cowen of George Mason University echoed that criticism in an article for The Free Press, arguing that Green’s analysis is a series of “methodological errors” and ignores improvements in living standards. Cowen said Green mischaracterized how the poverty line is actually calculated, which is updated annually for inflation using the Consumer Price Index.
Tyler Cowen argued that Green conflated the poverty line with a middle-class comfort threshold. That is a meaningful distinction. Poverty traditionally describes a condition of genuine deprivation – not having reliable food, stable shelter, or basic medical care. A household earning $90,000 may feel financially strained by childcare costs and housing prices, but calling that family poor stretches the word beyond recognition.
Green dramatically understated American incomes, according to critics. Central to his thesis, for example, is that the median American family makes just $80,000 per year. Yet economist Jeremy Horpedahl of the University of Central Arkansas showed that this figure included single people and retirees, while the actual number for Green’s target demographic, married couples with children, was $132,959 in 2024. For the median American family with two earners, the 2024 figure was an even higher $142,200. That changes the picture considerably.
Green also conceded that his original analysis was premised on the cost of living in Essex County, New Jersey, which lies in one of the most expensive metropolitan areas in the country. After Green admitted the error, he suggested Lynchburg, Virginia, as more nationally representative, but this change alone dropped his personal threshold for American “poverty” to $93,755 – 46 percent lower than the original, viral claim. That is a significant revision. A threshold of $93,755 still exceeds the median household income, but it is a very different claim than $136,500 or $140,000.
Green also extrapolated the most costly years of childcare – the first few – and assumed parents would face that burden forever. The centerpiece for his argument about struggling two-earner households was data from the MIT Living Wage Calculator showing an annual two-child childcare expense of $32,773. But that was in Essex County. In Lynchburg and similar areas, childcare costs were just $12,544 – meaning Green’s figure was a comical 161 percent too high.
What the Poverty Line Debate Gets Right – Even When the Numbers Are Wrong
Even Green’s sharpest critics acknowledged that he touched something real. The passionate response to Green’s essay reveals a genuine tension in American economic life. Economic indicators show historically low unemployment, rising wages, and declining official poverty rates. Yet many families, including those earning six figures, report feeling financially precarious.
The government has its own supplemental tool designed to capture some of this complexity. Unlike the official poverty rate, the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) accounts for government assistance to low-income families. The SPM, first released in 2011, extends the official poverty measure by accounting for several government programs designed to assist low-income families. It also accounts for geographic variation in housing expenses when calculating poverty thresholds and includes federal and state taxes, work expenses, and medical expenses. The national official poverty rate of 10.6% was 2.3 percentage points lower than the Supplemental Poverty Measure of 12.9% in 2024, according to the Census Bureau’s Poverty in the United States: 2024 report. The gap between those two figures reflects exactly the kind of cost pressures Green is describing – they are real, but they affect a different and smaller population than two-thirds of the country.
Federal analyses from the Department of Health and Human Services describe “effective marginal tax rates” that can eat up a big share of each extra dollar a low-income worker earns, once you factor in higher payroll and income taxes and reductions in SNAP, Medicaid, housing vouchers, or childcare subsidies. In some scenarios, families lose most or even all of an extra $1,000 in earnings to reduced benefits and higher taxes. This is the benefit cliff – a structural problem in the safety net that Green’s essay describes with real accuracy, even if his headline number was too high.
Research from the University of Wisconsin’s Institute for Research on Poverty shows that these cliffs are especially steep for families in the 50 to 150 percent of the official poverty line range – exactly the people trying to climb out of poverty into more stable work. That finding does not require a $136,500 threshold to be meaningful. The problem is real at far lower income levels.
The Geographic Reality of What a Comfortable Family Budget Looks Like
What is considered a comfortable family budget in the U.S. varies enormously by zip code. As Green himself noted, “The nerve that I struck is unfortunately what many people have been demanding, which is just for people to actually listen to their lived experience, what’s going on in the households in America.” That lived experience differs massively between rural Mississippi and San Francisco.
The 2024 Supplemental Poverty Measure thresholds for consumer units with two adults and two children are $39,430 for renters, $39,068 for owners with mortgages, and $32,586 for owners without mortgages, as compared to the official poverty threshold of $31,812 for a family of four. The SPM’s geographic adjustments try to capture that reality, but even those numbers sit far below Green’s $136,500 marker – because the SPM measures deprivation, not comfort.
A more grounded question for most families is not “what income counts as four times the poverty line?” but “what income allows us to cover our costs and build any savings?” That number genuinely does approach six figures in most major metro areas. To afford a market-rate two-bedroom apartment in New Hampshire, one of the states with the 12th most expensive rent in the country, a household needs to earn about $35 an hour, for an annual income of $72,971, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition. That is just for rent on one type of unit. Add childcare, healthcare, transportation, and food, and the total climbs quickly.
The honest takeaway is that Green’s $136,500 is a defensible number for high-cost metro areas, but a poor proxy for the national picture. The more revealing question is not whether most Americans are in poverty by any definition, but whether the safety net’s design traps families in a financial no-man’s-land where they earn too much for help and too little for stability.
What This Means for Your Family’s Budget
Whether or not $136,500 is the true poverty threshold, this debate contains concrete lessons for any family trying to make sense of their own finances.
Start with the benefit cliff problem. If your household earns between $40,000 and $100,000, check what government programs your income currently qualifies you for – from Marketplace health insurance premium tax credits to childcare subsidy programs – and map out exactly what happens to those benefits if your income rises. A U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation review found that effective marginal tax rates tied to benefit loss can range from 17% to 65%, meaning workers can lose more than half of every extra dollar they earn. A raise is not always a net gain. Knowing your cliff points lets you plan around them, not stumble off them.
Second, treat housing and childcare as the two costs most likely to distort your budget. Green’s analysis, whatever its flaws, correctly identifies these as the line items where American spending has changed most dramatically since the poverty formula was written. They are not fixed costs you can trim with coupons. They require strategic decisions: location, household size, timing of children relative to career stage, and proximity to family support networks.
Third, do not let the political noise around this debate obscure its practical core. The gap between economic statistics and people’s experiences and anxieties deserves serious examination. Unemployment may be low, and wages may be rising on paper, but paper gains mean little if they are absorbed entirely by higher rent, higher health insurance premiums, and childcare bills that rival a second mortgage. Build your budget from your actual costs, not from national averages that may not reflect your city or family structure.
What to Do Now
The Green debate has real value for any family doing financial planning right now, even if the $136,500 threshold itself is imprecise. The core message is sound: the federal poverty line is not a reliable guide to what financial stability actually requires in 2025. It is a 60-year-old formula built for a world where food was your biggest expense, housing was cheap, one income could sustain a family, and childcare did not yet exist as a market. That world is gone.
The family budget threshold 2024 discussion – sparked by the Michael Green family budget analysis Substack essay – is worth taking seriously, not because Green’s math was flawless, but because it forced a national conversation about what financial stability actually costs. While real affordability challenges exist, the general long-term trend for both middle-class living and real poverty has been positive. But “generally positive” and “financially secure” are not the same thing. Use Green’s framework as a prompt to audit your own household costs honestly. List your actual annual spending on housing, healthcare, childcare, transportation, food, and essentials. Then compare it to your income. If the federal poverty line comparison leaves you further from security than the official number suggests, you are not imagining it – and you are far from alone.
AI-assisted content. Reviewed for accuracy. Always consult a qualified financial advisor before making major personal finance decisions. This article discusses personal finance and economic policy topics and does not constitute financial advice.
Read More: Loneliness in Older Adults Linked to 30% Higher Risk of Dementia