The minimum wage of about $7.25 per hour, 40 hrs per week, 52 weeks comes to $15,080 which is around 12,000 GBP. So the pension is 2.5 times the minimum wage level. Please note: I am not attacking the article or the poor lady - I am just pointing out that what sounds like a paltry sum (225 pounds in 1868) is nearly lower middle class income today, and not penury.

It's true that the US minimum wage is far less than what Ms. Laing received.

Two things to keep in mind though. First, despite the Federal minimum, many states and localities have much higher minimums, for the reason that the Federal minimum is insufficient to live off of in many places. For example, San Francisco, has a minimum of $16.99/hr. or about £29,265 p.a., very close to Mrs. Laing's pension.

Second, whether it's the Federal or San Francisco minimum, it's at best barely sufficient even for a single person. Mrs. Laing had a family of eight people. The US national poverty threshold for a family of 8 is $40K (£33,249) [0], so her by those standards her family would indeed be very poor.

[0] https://aspe.hhs.gov/topics/poverty-economic-mobility/povert...

Yearly salary for a skilled worker in the US was around $700/£140 in the 1860s was in England it was around £100 or even less. So in that context £225 is not that bad.

Being the minimum wage 7.25 an hour, wouldn't be yearly around half of that number?

(Foreigner here, I don't have the minimum wage in the US super clear)

You are right I was thinking household (2 adults working).