Aren't the poorest in society naturally always going to be the bottom 25% or so? The poorest American is still in the top 10% of the world.
Statistical measures of poverty are set in terms of being able to afford the basic necessities of life, such as food, housing, medical care, transport, education and communications. Relative standing is irrelevant.
Further, having 10 times more income (or wealth) than subsistence farmer in sub-Saharan Africa is meaningless if your cost of living is 1000 times higher than that of a subsistence farmer in sub-Saharan Africa. Poor Americans aren't paying sub-Saharan African prices; they're paying American prices, and that means their income does not go very far.
The problem with asking the government to fix this in some way is that you'll most likely ensure the absolute floor of the pricing with be set higher.
It's all those beautiful first world regulations we set out subsiding the price paid that ensure pricing is high, not capitalism. I'm not saying remove them but if we can not recognise the the true source of the problems it's hard to improve it meaningfully.
If unintentional, perhaps you should consider your life and behavior in view of the three ghosts referenced in that novella.
So you're right that the old mantra about a poor American being in the top 10% of the world is no longer true. Having made that concession, we should also recognize that the poor in the US are still much better off than the poor in a lot of other countries. That group of countries has just been shrinking over the past 30 years.
Our main societal concern should be, "How do we reverse that trend?" Because more and more of the middle class are joining the ranks of the poor, and though it's only my opinion, I don't think that will end well for us.