I've read her books, am currently working my way through her latest one. The Two-Income Trap was eye opening when I read it 12 years ago, I now have my daughter in her 20's reading it now in hope she avoids being in that trap.
Yes, I do see a lot of people with two incomes become dependent on both incomes, and what happens when a job loss or divorce or illness (or whatever) comes along and they can't make their monthly obligations that require both incomes. Personally, I think most people are fed the lies of what is the norm and most sheeple follow it. They are told go to school, go to college, get a job that is secure, get married, buy a house, start a family, both parents work... and they do it. Years go by and there they are, in a too much of a house that is near the good schools, driving kids to daycare to be able to go to that second job to pay for the higher cost of the house that is in the good school and having to borrow for the newer car that they are feared into getting for it's safety, etc... and then something happens and boom! Most bankruptcies aren't due to frivolous spending.
I, for one, am glad to know someone out there is looking at this data, asking the 'why's', and is trying to do something about it. If politics is her vehicle to do that, so what. She is pointing out some things that have changed and things that needs to change (and not always just changing in favor of big banking).
She gets my *thumbs up*. But it is STILL up to us individuals to change things in our own lives!
Yeah, I read that book long ago when we were still young and making choices about staying home with children, etc. -- and clearly she was pushing her agenda. For example, she assumed that all jobs require expensive clothing (and dry cleaning), lunches out, etc. And she only addressed the years in which your children need full-fledged day care.
As for two incomes being a trap, that CAN BE true, but it DOESN'T HAVE TO BE true.
When my husband and I first married, we had essentially nothing (we had $200, two cars -- one that didn't run, a house and a brand-new mortgage, and three college degrees), and we both agreed that our #1 priority was building up a nest egg. I was working part time and going to school, and we agreed that we'd live off his income and save mine. Once we had an emergency fund, we started working on paying off the house. We always maxed out the 401Ks. We've NEVER planned a lifestyle that depended upon BOTH incomes.
While two people making minimum wage might not be able to pull this off, the vast majority of Americans can do it -- if they make conscious choices.
Also, the argument that a SAH spouse could be more help in a financial emergency by going back to work doesn't necessarily ring true to me: Yes, a SAH spouse COULD go back to work -- but that isn't necessarily possible on the turn of a dime. That spouse will need to search for a job, will need work clothes, perhaps transportation, perhaps child care; those things require time and money to arrange. Yes, the recently-employed spouse might have a car that the new worker could use, but if the recently-employed spouse is searching for work, that transportation may not be available. Likewise, that spouse may not be available all the time for child care -- especially if illness caused the job loss. Warren makes it sound as if having a SAH spouse could make a job loss essentially "seamless", whereas the reality is that a typical family who's two paychecks from broke will still have a significant hiccup in the family finances in the face of a job loss.
Clearly the family who's best prepared for a financial emergency is the two-income family who has been living on less than they earn. That family is most likely to have savings upon which to fall back and is likely to have insurance coming from two spouses. Also, those spouses would both have up-to-date work skills and recent work experience and contacts, making them viable candidates for new jobs.