This particular complaint should be met with an angry shout of "What the hell did you think was going to happen anyway?" quite possibly with a few cuffs around the ears to encourage thought:
A record 60% of British people in poverty live in a household where someone is in work, according to researchers, with the risk of falling into financial hardship especially high for families in private rented housing.
No, that's not it, this is:
Low pay is a trigger for in-work poverty but the primary determinant is the number of workers in a household, with single-earner families at a very significantly elevated risk of hardship, the study says.
So what the hell else did anyone think was going to happen?
We measure poverty as being below 60% of median household income (and then in various forms, before and after housing costs, disposable income, before and after tax and benefits and so on). We adjust for the size of the household, the number of adults - but not for the number of earners. The median UK household has two earners in it. Thus single earner households are much more likely to be in poverty simply because of the way we measure it, comparing single earner household incomes to that median of dual.
The result is built into our measurement system. We could not reach any other result given that measurement system.
Imagine, just as an example, that the second adult went out to work and the household then spent upon paid child care. As many have actually noted the extra earnings from that second job only just about cover those child care costs. The household isn't any better off. But by our poverty measure that household isn't going to be in poverty any more as a result of two earnings not one.
We must always, but always, remember that we do not actually have any poverty in the UK. That, the absolute poverty, was beaten back in the 1930s. What we have and what we measure today is inequality, the thing we call relative poverty. And if we don't remember this then we're going to be making mistakes similar to the one above.
Single earner households have lower earnings that dual earning ones. Blimey, that's a bit of a surprise, innit?