38% households in Charleston, Berkeley, and Dorchester County struggle to make ends meet, study says
CHARLESTON, S.C. (WCBD) – Nearly 40% of households in the tri-county are struggling to cover the cost of basic needs, according to a new report from Trident United Way and its research partner United For ALICE.
These households in Charleston, Berkeley, and Dorchester counties were considered to be living in poverty or are ALICE: Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed. ALICE households do not make enough to afford basic expenses in the county where they live, but earn more above the Federal Poverty Level.
Data from Trident United Way and United For ALICE reveals that in 2023, 38% of households, 130,360 families, could not afford basic needs. 11% were living in poverty, and 27% were ALICE.
The study states that thousands of households, particularly those led by single parents, are living paycheck to paycheck with incomes that fall short of covering the costs of food, transportation, healthcare, technology, and housing. According to their research, a family of four with an infant and preschooler needs $89,904 annually to meet the cost of living in the area.
'This means entire families and essential workers may be overlooked for support, left without the resources they need to stay healthy, achieve financial stability and reach their fullest potential. That's a loss not just for ALICE households, but our entire community,' said D.J. Hampton, Trident United Way President and CEO.
The State of ALICE in South Carolina report also states that in 2023:
South Carolina ranked 34th in financial hardship among all 50 states and D.C.
Younger and older households faced the highest rates of financial strain, with 69% of the youngest and 51% of the oldest households living below the ALICE Threshold, compared to 37% of households led by someone aged 25-44.
Housing costs remain a major burden: 66% of renters and 43% of homeowners living below the ALICE Threshold were housing cost-burdened, meaning they spent 30% or more of their income on housing.
'By providing a name and a way to quantify these households, we're equipping communities with the data to build solutions that offer better choices and real pathways to stability,' said Stephanie Hoopes, Ph.D., National Director at United For ALICE.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
'Construction firms won't let me work because I'm a girl'
A stonemasonry student said companies had told her she could not join the profession "because she's a girl". Alice, who is 17, was one of the students who took part in a competition for apprentices at Moulton College in Northampton on Thursday. Industry experts have said 19,750 extra construction workers are needed in the East of England by 2028 to meet government housebuilding targets. However, some students, like Alice, said they still faced barriers which made it difficult to pursue a career in construction. The SkillBuild competition, organised by the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB), tested apprentices and trainees in a variety of tasks, from furniture making to tiling. Alice, from Weston Favell in Northamptonshire, inherited her interest in architecture from her grandfather and wanted to work on some of the UK's greatest stone buildings - cathedrals. But she said her journey had not been easy. "I've tried to contact some companies to get onto that kind of work, but it hasn't really worked out," she told the BBC. "The main thing is that I'm a woman and a lot of companies have told me 'you can't do this because you're a girl - you're not strong enough, you won't be able to do the heavy labour'." Another competitor, Maizie from Bury St Edmonds in Suffolk, wanted to encourage more women to join the industry. The 17-year-old goes to college in Colchester and said: "In my class it's actually a pretty good mix, but in the industry as a whole, it's definitely a big imbalance. "People need to realise the value of these industries, and we need to push more young people to go into it. It can be a bit inaccessible at the beginning, especially for young people, since working in these workshop environments can be quite dangerous." The first obstacle in the competition for Rugby man Sean, 18, was having to "scavenge" for the right tools to make a porch roof, having brought the wrong ones. The bigger issue for him, generally, was the lack of opportunities for young people. He said: "There's not enough apprenticeships - it took me two years to get here, and I feel like that's one of the biggest problems. "The amount of houses they're trying to build; they definitely need more apprenticeships." A CITB report published this month said 19,750 new workers were needed in the region. Robert Smith, from the CITB, said "we really need to make that attractive so that they know there are jobs for the future, secure opportunities and great career pathways". The figures suggest there is a long way to go before there is a gender balance in the industry. According to The Office for National Statistics, women comprise just 15.8% of the construction workforce and only 2% of workers onsite. There is some hope, though, with the number of women as a proportion of the overall construction workforce increasing by 36.9% since 2012. The government said construction would be one area to benefit from a "record-breaking £3bn apprenticeship budget". Follow Northamptonshire news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X. 'I went from studying fine art to tiling floors' Trainee brickie urges more women to consider trade Calls for gender balance in construction industry Moulton College Construction Industry Training Board
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
'Construction firms won't let me work because I'm a girl'
A stonemasonry student said companies had told her she could not join the profession "because she's a girl". Alice, who is 17, was one of the students who took part in a competition for apprentices at Moulton College in Northampton on Thursday. Industry experts have said 19,750 extra construction workers are needed in the East of England by 2028 to meet government housebuilding targets. However, some students, like Alice, said they still faced barriers which made it difficult to pursue a career in construction. The SkillBuild competition, organised by the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB), tested apprentices and trainees in a variety of tasks, from furniture making to tiling. Alice, from Weston Favell in Northamptonshire, inherited her interest in architecture from her grandfather and wanted to work on some of the UK's greatest stone buildings - cathedrals. But she said her journey had not been easy. "I've tried to contact some companies to get onto that kind of work, but it hasn't really worked out," she told the BBC. "The main thing is that I'm a woman and a lot of companies have told me 'you can't do this because you're a girl - you're not strong enough, you won't be able to do the heavy labour'." Another competitor, Maizie from Bury St Edmonds in Suffolk, wanted to encourage more women to join the industry. The 17-year-old goes to college in Colchester and said: "In my class it's actually a pretty good mix, but in the industry as a whole, it's definitely a big imbalance. "People need to realise the value of these industries, and we need to push more young people to go into it. It can be a bit inaccessible at the beginning, especially for young people, since working in these workshop environments can be quite dangerous." The first obstacle in the competition for Rugby man Sean, 18, was having to "scavenge" for the right tools to make a porch roof, having brought the wrong ones. The bigger issue for him, generally, was the lack of opportunities for young people. He said: "There's not enough apprenticeships - it took me two years to get here, and I feel like that's one of the biggest problems. "The amount of houses they're trying to build; they definitely need more apprenticeships." A CITB report published this month said 19,750 new workers were needed in the region. Robert Smith, from the CITB, said "we really need to make that attractive so that they know there are jobs for the future, secure opportunities and great career pathways". The figures suggest there is a long way to go before there is a gender balance in the industry. According to The Office for National Statistics, women comprise just 15.8% of the construction workforce and only 2% of workers onsite. There is some hope, though, with the number of women as a proportion of the overall construction workforce increasing by 36.9% since 2012. The government said construction would be one area to benefit from a "record-breaking £3bn apprenticeship budget". Follow Northamptonshire news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X. 'I went from studying fine art to tiling floors' Trainee brickie urges more women to consider trade Calls for gender balance in construction industry Moulton College Construction Industry Training Board
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Yahoo
The Supreme Court Wants to Crush Regulation—But Not the Fed
When my daughter Alice was six, she looked down at a roasted half-chicken on her plate, visualized it for the first time as the body of a once-living creature, and announced that she would henceforth be a vegetarian—'except for bacon.' I thought of Alice last Thursday when the Supreme Court ruled, in an unsigned emergency-docket opinion, that a president may fire any member of an independent federal agency—except at the Federal Reserve. Alice gave up bacon about a year after her dinner-table pronunciamento, demonstrating the maxim, usually attributed to St. Ignatius of Loyola, that 7 is the age at which a child acquires the ability to reason. The median age of a Supreme Court justice is 66, so I don't know what their excuse is. But if the high court follows Alice's example, it will eventually have to concede that the president can fire the Fed chair, too. I remain convinced that President Donald Trump will do so before Jerome Powell's term ends in May 2026, and that the court will let him do it. I believe this because Trump has the impulse control of a toddler, and because the Supreme Court has painted itself into a corner. Let me stipulate at the outset that I don't expect the Supreme Court to uphold most of Trump's outrageous power grabs. These have been so far beyond the pale that even Trump-appointed judges often rule against him. According to Bloomberg, 'about 24 percent of federal district judges pausing or blocking the administration's policies were appointed by Trump or other Republican presidents.' As of May 8, Bloomberg counted 329 lawsuits filed against Trump's actions as president, with judges ruling against Trump in 128 cases and for him in 43. (In the remainder, no rulings are yet issued.) But it was a given from the start that the Supreme Court would allow Trump to fire two Biden appointees—Gwynne Wilcox at the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris at the Merit Systems Protection Board—whose terms weren't due to expire until 2029. That's because we've known for some time that there are five conservative justices ready to overturn Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935), a New Deal case that upheld statutory language making illegal any independent-agency firing without cause. The only surprise was that the conservative majority gave Wilcox and Harris the hook before it got around to overturning Humphrey's Executor. It was acting, at the president's request, against two district court judges and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which (following established law) reinstated Wilcox and Harris. The Supreme Court said its removal of Wilcox and Harris 'reflects our judgment that the Government is likely to show that both the NLRB and MSPB exercise considerable executive power' that the Constitution vests in the president. Translation: Why wait? We know what we think before we hear any arguments. The high court further said that 'the Government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty.' What 'harm' to the government were they talking about? Certainly Wilcox and Harris could be counted on not to create the kind of disruption that the Humphrey's Executor plaintiff William E. Humphrey generated at the Federal Trade Commission when President Franklin Roosevelt tried to fire him back in 1933. Humphrey was a prize asshole who couldn't get along even with his fellow Republican on the FTC, Abram Myers. 'He reveled in personal and political attacks,' observed Marc Winerman, a former FTC lawyer, and William Kovacic, a former FTC chairman, in a 2011 article for the Antitrust Law Journal: Alluding to socialism, he denounced as 'pink' politicians who used the FTC to 'persecute honest business.' When [Pennsylvania Governor] Gifford Pinchot questioned if the FTC could be trusted to investigate utilities, Humphrey (in an FTC press release) called the attack 'regurgitated filth.' You get the idea. Humphrey continued reporting to work after he was fired (a disruptive example today's Democratic appointees might consider following), but he dropped dead the following year, which is why the case isn't called Humphrey v. United States. (The case continued because Humphrey's heirs sought back pay to the time of his death.) The real harm the current Supreme Court had in mind last week was that the NLRB and MSPB, in re-acquiring the quorum Wilcox's and Harris's removal denies, would resume the work that Congress assigned to these agencies, in 1935 and 1979, respectively, which was to protect the rights of private-sector workers and government whistleblowers. The Trump Court would appear to share its namesake's preference that the NLRB and MSPB not function at all. Trump has yet to nominate anyone to fill two Republican vacancies on the NLRB and one on the MSPB. That's nuts even from a conservative point of view, because until these agencies acquire a Republican-majority quorum they can't overturn Biden-era regulations and administrative-law precedents favorable to workers and whistleblowers. (See my February piece, 'Trump's Incompetence Is Botching His Own Deregulation Spree.') The same logic applies to Trump's firings of Democrats at the Federal Trade Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which similarly lack quorums as a result. (In these instances, though, Trump has nominated commissioners to fill Republican vacancies.) The Democratic firings at the FTC and the EEOC have prompted lawsuits similar to those filed by Wilcox and Harris. Yet even as it permits Trump to trash most independent agencies, the Supreme Court draws a line at the Federal Reserve. Wilcox and Harris argued that if Trump could fire them, then he could also fire top officials at the Fed, causing potential economic calamity. (Sorry, make that more economic calamity.) 'We disagree,' the Thursday ruling said, because 'The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States.' This is an abbreviated version of the History Channel gibberish that Justices Sam Alito and Neil Gorsuch served up in their dissent in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association (see page 21, footnote 16). Only now the Republican majority is pushing a little harder the idea that the 'quasi-private' nature of the Fed (whatever that means) makes it different from other independent agencies. Tell that to the officials DOGE removed, with assistance from District of Columbia cops, from the United States Institute for Peace, a genuinely independent nonprofit funded by the federal government. (Last week, a judge ruled that this was, indeed, unlawful.) Justice Elena Kagan, in a fine dissent also signed by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, called bullshit on all this. 'Our emergency docket,' Kagan wrote, 'while fit for some things, should not be used to overrule or revise existing law.' Yes. On the purported harm from letting Wilcox and Harris return to their jobs, Kagan wrote: 'What matters … is not that Wilcox and Harris would love to keep serving in their nifty jobs. What matters instead is that Congress provided for them to serve their full terms.' Yes. Kagan also mocked the majority's 'bespoke Federal Reserve exception,' stating that 'the Federal Reserve's independence rests on the same constitutional and analytic foundations as that of the NLRB, MSPB, FTC, FCC, and so on—which is to say it rests largely on Humphrey's.' Kagan added that 'If the idea is to reassure the markets,' then the majority should have upheld Humphrey's until the high court could actually rule on it. Markets really like to see civil order and the disinterested pursuit of justice! I don't think the markets especially noticed Thursday's ruling, but that's only because they were too busy keeping abreast of Trump's tariffs and research funding cutoffs and other gleeful sabotage of the economy. They'll notice when Trump fires Powell.
