The Two-Income Trap by Elizabeth Warren; Amelia Warren Tyagi Read Free Book Online

Intentions
    So how did families get sucked into the Two-Income Trap? The answer is unexpectedly simple: No one saw it coming.
    The politics that surrounded women’s collective decision to migrate into the workforce are a study in misdirection. On the left, the women’s movement was battling for equal pay and equal opportunity, and any suggestion that the family might be better off with Mother at home was discounted as reactionary chauvinism. On the right, conservative commentators accused working mothers of everything from child abandonment to defying the laws of nature. The atmosphere was far too charged for any rational assessment of the financial consequences of sending both spouses into the workforce.
    The massive miscalculation ensued because both sides of the political spectrum discounted the financial value of the stay-at-home mother. Feminist leader Betty Friedan scoffed at the economic role of the homemaker: “[T]he really important role that women serve as housewives is to buy more things for the house. . . . Somehow, somewhere, someone must have figured out that women will buy more things if they are kept in the underused, nameless-yearning, energy-to-get-rid-of state of being housewives.” 13
    Feminists assumed that women’s entry into the workforce entailed no real costs—only benefits. Conservatives, for their part, slavishly touted the emotional benefits that a stay-at-home mother provides to her children and fretted over “who will rock the cradle” when mothers abandon their homes. 14 There was no room in either worldview for the capable, resourceful mother who might spend her days devoted to
the roles of wife and mother, but who could, if necessary, rise to the occasion and dive headlong into the workforce to support her family. No one saw the stay-at-home mom as the family’s safety net.
    Moreover, it was easy for each family to see income going up, but it was very hard to foresee what would happen if something went wrong. When most families plan their futures and pencil in their budgets, they concentrate on what is most immediate. They look at the paychecks coming in, the mortgage going out, the month-to-month fluctuations in the checking account. Except for those disquieting moments when they take out a life insurance policy or learn that a friend has lost his job, most don’t notice the growing vulnerability that has seeped into their lives and stolen their security.

Turn Back the Clock?
    Must mothers give up their jobs and head back home if they are to escape the Two-Income Trap? We suspect that at least a few conservative commentators will draw exactly that conclusion from these pages. But as two working mothers, we confess to deep resistance to calling for such a move. We remain dedicated 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. But personal politics aren’t the point here. Such a mass exodus from workplace to home is about as likely as the revival of the horse-drawn buggy. Social and political forces have changed the shape of women’s expectations and their role within the family. New information about the macroeconomic implications of their entry into the workforce is unlikely to change much.
    Even if women listened hard to those admonishing them to remain at home, most could not do it. Such advice ignores the fact that families are caught in a trap. Any individual family that chooses to drop down to one income will be immediately penalized, while those who keep both parents in the workforce will gain a strategic advantage. Sure, they may understand that living on two incomes increases their risk of economic collapse, but risks dwell in the future—and the kids
have needs that must be met today. Besides, in many families, it is far too late to contemplate pulling Mom out of the workforce. For the millions of parents who have already committed Mom’s income to the mortgage and car payments, the