Content provided in partnership with

Rediscovering the family.

National Review, Jan 26, 2004 by Allan Carlson

The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke (With Surprising Solutions That Will Change Our Children's Futures)

by Elizabeth Warren and Amelia Warren Tyagi

(Basic, 272 pp., $26)

This book is a fine example of post-feminist angst. On one hand, the authors remain firmly bound to "the best part of the feminist movement--the rock-solid belief that women who want to work should have every opportunity to do so." On the other hand, they document how this feminist economic project has produced widespread disaster for American families, children ... and women as well.

Most Popular Articles in News: The Ten Best Laptop bags; Tata plans cheapest-ever car for Indian market; GLOBALIZATION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT OF THE THIRD WORLD; Corn is good for you; Corn is not only a tasty treat, but also a cereal that ...; THE 50 BEST STYLISH HANDBAGS TO CARRY; More »

Harvard bankruptcy-law professor Elizabeth Warren and her daughter Amelia Warren Tyagi report that the feminists' coveted "two-breadwinner family" has, in practice, brought the "dance of financial ruin." Back in 1981, a mere 69,000 women had their names on bankruptcy petitions; by 2001, over 500,000 women did. Bearing a child has now become "the single best predictor that a woman will end up in financial collapse." Married couples with children are more than twice as likely to file for bankruptcy as their childless counterparts. Women entering "the feminist dream"--a fresh no-fault divorce, custody of the children, ample child support, a good middle-class job, a nice home--face even greater odds of disaster. More than one of every six such mothers will file for bankruptcy in the current decade; among newly single mothers who attended college, the rate is higher still.

Two-breadwinner families, it turns out, are simply awash in debt. In 1981, savings made up 11 percent of average personal income, and credit-card debt 4 percent. By 2000, savings were minus 1 percent and credit-card debt a sobering 12 percent. Overall, inflation-adjusted credit-card debt rose from $10 billion in 1968 to a staggering $600 billion in 2000. Nearly half of American households are near the line where turning to bankruptcy makes good economic sense.

How did this happen? Warren and Tyagi argue persuasively that mass "over-consumption" is not the problem. Americans actually spend proportionately less these days on items such as food and clothing than they did in the 1960s. Instead, the authors point to the unintended consequences of sending 20 million American mothers to work. Rather than gaining more disposable household income, families saw real wages for men decline: the predictable result of more laborers pursuing the same number of jobs. Day-care bills and higher marginal taxes combined with the costs of a second car and swollen restaurant bills to absorb a good share of the mothers' new income. The higher nominal incomes of two-earner families also led to a fresh "bidding war" for nice homes in good suburban school districts, sending mortgage costs soaring.

Most important, the oft-derided stay-at-home mother proved to have been the true "safety net" in American life. When her husband suddenly lost his job or became seriously ill, the homemaker was there to find employment and protect the family living standard. Or when a child or elderly parent suddenly needed special care, the homemaker was again available to serve, without any loss in family income. Contemporary two-income households have already built their budgets around their full potential earning power. When the unexpected strikes--a layoff, a debilitating illness, a divorce--financial disaster looms.

At times, Warren and Tyagi become almost rhapsodic in praise of the old-fashioned homemaker. "A stay-at-home mother served as the family's ultimate insurance against unemployment and disability," they write. "When mothers joined the workforce, the family gave up something of considerable (although unrecognized) economic value: an extra skilled and dedicated adult, available to pitch in to help save the family during times of emergency." The authors could have also cited the vital productive role played by the mother-at-home: the maternal nursing, the child care, the home maintenance, the gardening, canning, and sewing, the home-cooked meals; all clear economic gain for the family provided on a tax-free basis, and mostly lost when the mother went to work.

But Warren and Tyagi refuse to go that far, unwilling to let go of the last shreds of the feminist myth. They acknowledge that the family-wage regime of the 1940-65 era had protected family income and security by maintaining separate wage scales for men and women. They even write that "the policy was widely viewed as a normal feature of almost every 'family friendly' workplace," resting on the premise that "men needed these higher wages to support a family at home." Still, they dismiss the scheme as unfair, insisting that the "battle for full equality must continue." Repeatedly, their argument leads to the logical conclusion that mothers should return home; and repeatedly, they turn to the non sequitur: "Are you kidding?"

Rediscovering the family.

National Review, Jan 26, 2004 by Allan Carlson

Find Research Guides for:

Find Featured Titles for: Health

Most Popular Articles in News

Most Popular Publications in News