Home / Glossary / Poor
Poor
Also written: poverty, the poor, poorest
identity-termperson-first-framingself-id-requiredevolving-usage
At a glance
Source-by-source
“This can often be done by using terms as adjectives rather than nouns … or by actively putting "people" first (i.e. people with disabilities vs. disabled people; people living in poverty vs. poor people; people who are homeless vs. homeless people).”
The Opportunity Agenda frames the fix as a grammar move: put personhood first and use the condition as a modifier rather than a defining noun. "People living in poverty" is offered as the person-first alternative to "poor people," alongside "people with disabilities" and "people who are homeless."
“Terms avoided/ questioned by economic justice activists … in need, the needy … less fortunate … the poor … Terms used by economic justice activists … low-income (as an adjective) … people experiencing material poverty”
What groups "the poor" with "the needy" and "less fortunate" here is the charity-and-pity register they share — language that positions people as objects of sympathy rather than agents. SumOfUs's tell is the parenthetical "(as an adjective)": the fix is grammatical as much as lexical, keeping "low-income" a modifier and never the whole of a person.
“Our work and writing about poverty should always seek to frame issues with an agency lens, rather than depicting people living in poverty as helpless. We should always maintain affected people as the agents in their own story …”
DCFPI's guide pairs an avoid/instead table — "Poor/poorest" maps to "People with low incomes," "Low-income," or "People with incomes below the poverty line" — with an over-arching empowering-language principle: write about poverty with an agency lens, keep affected people as agents in their own story, and don't cast advocates as saviors.
“Do not use descriptors or phrases including: … At-risk … The poor … In need, the needy … Wrong side of the tracks … Welfare queen/king … Disadvantaged … Underprivileged”
Sierra Club lists "The poor" among the class descriptors not to use, alongside "In need, the needy," "Disadvantaged," and "Underprivileged." The surrounding guidance ties the rule to anti-classism: avoid framing that ties a person's worth to their economic contributions, and write out the structural barriers instead.
“TERM TO AVOID … SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE … COMMENT … the poor … people whose incomes are below the federal poverty threshold … Many people find the terms “low-class” and “poor” pejorative. Conversely, class solidarity exists in “poor people’s movements” …”
APA's socioeconomic-status table lists "the poor" and "poor people" as terms to avoid, suggesting "people whose incomes are below the federal poverty threshold" and defining specific income brackets where possible. Its comment column flags both sides: many find "poor" pejorative, yet class solidarity lives in "poor people's movements" and many proudly self-identify as working class.
“Economy/Poverty … Avoid … Use This Instead … Poor/Poorest … Low income”
Movement Strategy Center's Economy/Poverty table maps "Poor/Poorest" to "Low income," within a broader set of swaps ("Disadvantaged" to "Disinvested," "Vulnerable" to "people with incomes below the poverty line"). Its framing is explicitly for transformative movement work — naming structural conditions rather than labeling people by deficit.
Audience notes
- Journalists and editors
- The consensus swap is person-first and income-specific: replace "the poor" / "poor people" with "people living in poverty," "people with low incomes," or — where you can — a concrete bracket like "people with incomes below the federal poverty threshold" (APA, DCFPI, Opportunity Agenda). The bare noun "the poor" reduces people to a condition; the adjective-plus-people construction keeps the person primary.
- Campaigners and advocacy communicators
- DCFPI and Movement Strategy Center go past word-swaps to framing: write about poverty with an agency lens, keep affected people as the agents in their own story, name the structural barriers (low wages, disinvestment), and don't position advocates as saviors. SumOfUs and Sierra Club also retire the charity register — "the needy," "less fortunate," "underprivileged" — for the same reason.
- When people self-identify as poor
- Self-identification is primary. APA notes that while many find "poor" pejorative, class solidarity lives in "poor people's movements" and many people proudly claim "working class." The avoid rules target outsider labeling, not how communities name themselves — follow the subject's own language.
Synthesis
Six equity guides converge on the same correction, holding steady across nearly a
decade. None treats poverty as unspeakable; what they retire is the
bare noun “the poor” (and “poor people”) as a way of naming people by a single
economic condition. The Opportunity Agenda (2015) states the underlying grammar
move plainly: put personhood first and use the condition as a modifier, “people
living in poverty” rather than “poor people,” the same construction it applies to
disability and homelessness. APA (2023) lands in the same place from a clinical-style
table, swapping “the poor” for “people whose incomes are below the federal poverty
threshold” and urging specific income brackets where possible. DCFPI (2017) and
Movement Strategy Center (2024) supply the activist-facing versions of the same swap
(“Poor/poorest” → “people with low incomes” / “low income”), and SumOfUs (2016) and
Sierra Club (2021) sort it into a wider retirement of the charity register:
“the needy,” “less fortunate,” “underprivileged,” “welfare queen.”
Where the sources go beyond word-swaps, they agree on framing over vocabulary.
DCFPI’s “empowering language” principle and Movement Strategy Center’s “transformative
movement” framing both insist on an agency lens: keep affected people as the agents in
their own story, name the structural causes (low wages, disinvestment, generational
wealth gaps), and avoid casting advocates or institutions as saviors. Sierra Club ties
its do-not-use list directly to anti-classism: don’t let language bind a person’s
worth to their economic output. The problem is
not the word “poverty” but deficit-and-pity framing that locates the failure in
individuals rather than in systems.
The one place the guides explicitly hold space for tension is self-identification.
APA names it: many people find “poor” pejorative, yet “class solidarity exists in
‘poor people’s movements,’” and many individuals proudly identify as “working class.”
The rules target outsider labeling, not the language communities choose for
themselves. Across
2015 to 2024 the recommendation never inverts; it only gets more specific, moving from
“put people first” toward “name the income level and the structural cause.” Adjacent
terms carry the neighboring cases: “disadvantaged” for the deficit-descriptor cluster,
“working-class” for the contested pride identity, and “classism” for the structural
concept underneath all of it.
Audience notes
See the structured audience notes above: journalists should default to person-first,
income-specific phrasing; campaigners should pair the word-swap with an agency-and-
structure frame and drop the charity register; and everyone should defer to how people
identify themselves, including communities that proudly claim “poor people’s movement”
or “working class.”
Related terms