Sorry, but if you don't produce enough to avoid living in poverty, no one can afford to pay you enough to avoid poverty. It ought to be obvious even to a liberal that no employer can pay an employee more than the productivity of that employee.
Some people apparently look upon employment as a paternalistic arrangement, in which the fatherly employer supports the employee, regardless of how much or how little the employee produces. Something like the allowances my children received for doing chores around the house.
Well, it isn't. Out of revenue from sales, the employer must pay wages, pay for raw materials, pay for utilities, pay taxes, and if there's anything left over, pay the owners (paying himself if the employer is also the owner). All these other factors of production are entitled to the market value of their contributions to production. Paying an employee more than the market value of his labor services is the road to bankruptcy.
If the market value of an employee's labor services are not enough to keep him out of poverty, then his only solution is to enhance the value of those services. Putting his employer out of business helps nobody.
Define “Poverty”?
To some “poverty” means not being able to afford more than one big screen TV.