Reddit Reddit reviews The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke

We found 13 Reddit comments about The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Business & Money
Books
Personal Finance
The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke
Check price on Amazon

13 Reddit comments about The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke:

u/dstz · 11 pointsr/Economics

>No, families found it more beneficial to have the second worker get a job outside the home.

Here's someone who disagrees quite strongly with that view:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A

http://www.amazon.com/Two-Income-Trap-Middle-Class-Mothers/dp/0465090826

u/down6under · 9 pointsr/politics

Even if most Americans were making 70K/year, the cost of living has increased disproportionately regardless.

http://www.amazon.com/Two-Income-Trap-Middle-Class-Mothers/dp/0465090826

u/pmorrisonfl · 9 pointsr/Frugal

An attempt at sources for TravelingJourneyman's claims... This article has an inflation-adjusted chart. Elizabeth Warren wrote 'The Two-Income Trap', interview here Personal anecdote: I lived in South Florida during last decade's boom. A townhouse I lived in tripled in price between its construction in 1999 and its (third) sale in 2005. Units like it have drastically fallen... to twice their 1999 construction price. Whether you buy or rent something like that, it's a big chunk of your paycheck... which didn't experience the same doubling.

u/LWRellim · 4 pointsr/economy

Just some further "food for thought" from my own experience that I felt people might find interesting.
-----

---

While the article itself is about the additional costs (childcare, etc) related to the "second earner" in a two income household (which I think E. Warren fully delineated -- and even made additional points the article did not address, things like income/financial vulnerability -- in her book, "The Two Income Trap").

But I think there is ALSO a lot of merit in looking at even the original/single/primary earner's "costs of holding Job X" in a similar fashion as well.

When I switched from a full-time commuting job (and one just a 30 minute drive away no less) to working from home, I noticed a dramatic drop in attendant expenses, to wit:

  1. No longer was I piling on 20,000 to 25,000 miles per year -- some 15,000+ of which were just going to/from work (60 miles per day, 5 days per week, ~50 weeks per year = 15,000 miles). At the IRS's current (and probably understated) "cost" of 55 cents per mile that's about $8250 a year. And remember that commuting costs are coming out of your NET (after tax) earnings.

  2. While the ending of that daily commute also meant the "loss" of the ability to stop at the grocer "on the way home" (and so grocery shopping becomes a specific additional trip) -- this ended up NOT being a "loss" at all, but rather the source of additional savings for at least 3 reasons:

  • I could now CHOOSE the specific grocery based on best-value, rather than simply buying at the one that was the "easiest" (read "closest to my commuting route").

  • Since grocery/food shopping is no longer being done when "weary" and on a "time to get home" constraint -- rather than buying a significant percentage of food as things that would be either "no-need to cook" or "quick/painless to cook" (i.e. various take-out, frozen dinners, box-mix-meals, etc.) -- I am able to be more relaxed and "selective" about it all, and can develop a real "long view" shopping list related to the quality/value of the food (which also has health & just general sense of well-being benefits).

  • And of course, "fast food" for lunch has become a rarity instead of a "default" option. (When you work at home, making your own lunch is significantly easier/faster in every possible way -- when you commute, it is all too easy to "default" to some fast-food option when you either forget to pack a lunch, or are tired of the same-old cold sandwich routine. And even if only a 2x per week and tight-fisted $5 per meal, that can come to $500 or more a year -- add in "snacks" bought from vending machines, or the quick-stop on the way to/from work and you can toss another $500 or more... and again all coming out of one's NET, after tax income.)

  1. Surprisingly enough, while I had expected that -- absent the ability to "stop on the way home" -- that I would get some kind of "cabin fever" and as a result would end up making a LOT of additional OTHER "trips to town". Turned out the opposite was true: as I grew accustomed to NOT driving on a daily basis, it became a habit to NOT drive places (i.e. driving begets more driving; not driving begets LESS driving) -- and I also began to "plan my trips" much more efficiently. End result was that instead of putting on an additional 5,000 to 10,000 miles per year on my vehicles (over and above the commuting mileage), instead I was able to reduce my mileage to around 3,000 miles per year. (Which not only engenders a HUGE savings on fuel, but also via the wear & tear on the vehicle -- so tires and everything else, including the vehicle itself, last a lot longer.)

  2. With the change in driving patterns, and the more extensive planning of shopping trips, I became much more "aware" of the costs of "comparative shopping" (aka additional driving as a means of "bargain hunting"). Since driving across town to another store (where object X might be $2 cheaper) -- rather than being something that might "happen anyway" in the near future -- instead meant a significant change in plans and extra fuel/mileage, I began to realize how those "bargains" often were not bargains at all (especially since "while you are there" at the other store you are very likely to buy extra things you don't need).

    Long story short... even though I am single (so no childen, no child-care costs) I found that I was spending anywhere from $10k to $15k of my NET after tax income on basically "having a job" (that I commuted to/from daily). That meant for my income/tax situation, on a GROSS basis I needed to make (at least) an additional $20k to $25k a year -- in essence because employees cannot deduct all expenses like a business can -- I was "subsidizing" my employer by that amount to have me work "on-site" for him. I could live the exact SAME level of lifestyle, while making significantly LESS (and of course as your income drops, so do your taxes... so you functionally get to "keep" substantially more of the value of your own work/efforts).

    ---

    EDIT: Also, I would like to note for all of the "ride a bike" folks that the location of that particular employer (as well as the previous employer) was in an area with significantly higher housing costs (both rental AND/OR purchase would have more than doubled my monthly housing expenses), so "moving closer in order to bike to work" would have not only shifted the costs from driving to housing, but would have actually significantly increased my total costs as well (HUGELY with the prior employer, which was located smack dab in the middle of the highest-cost housing in my state).

    Plus, of course I LOVE the relaxing, laid back location of my nice, but inexpensive and paid off, rural home (in an area that OTHER people buy second/vacation homes in, and spend 3+ hours driving to on Friday evenings, and another 3+ hours driving home from on Sunday night) -- a short distance from and with rights to several lakes, plus nearby state forests with walking/biking/XC & downhill skiing, not to mention my large almost 1 acre lot with garden, fruit trees & vines, etc -- in short by I don't need to travel to a relaxing destination for my "vacations", I already LIVE there!

    ---

    EDIT2: Note also that I am NOT claiming to be "perfectly frugal" -- I do still buy things I probably don't need, take occasional "wasteful" trips to town, etc. -- just that now that I am NOT commuting every day, the "opportunities" to do so are significantly fewer (probably 1/10th or 1/20th of what they were before); and I have been able to reduce what I previously budgeted for them (and then, SURPRISE! I have often found that over a whole year I have significantly under-spent what I had budgeted... who knew that would happen?)
u/Palestrina · 3 pointsr/TrueReddit
u/Cornyfleur · 3 pointsr/canada

This is a convenient myth. Far more relies upon circumstance and luck, than just responsible money management. In fact, some of THE BEST MONEY MANAGERS I know are persons of low wages or income, because they have no choice. I look around me at people over the $68K threshold, and we don't have to be as careful with our money, and, guess what? We're not! (and I am not just speaking for myself).

An excellent deep research of this in very readable form is "The Two Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke" by Elizabeth Warren and Amelia Warren Tyagi (http://www.amazon.ca/The-Two-Income-Trap-Middle-Class/dp/0465090826/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333117838&sr=8-1). Elizabeth is Special Advisor to the US President for Consumer Financial Protection.

The analysis here is as true for Canada as the US, more true since the economic downturn than when it was written in 2004.

u/callouskitty · 3 pointsr/politics

In the face of inequality and greater competition, people will tend to put as much money into housing as possible. As women entered the workforce a generation ago, real household income almost doubled, but disposable income actually went DOWN. Houses got a little bigger, but, for the most part, bidding wars just swallowed up the extra money and funneled it to Wall Street.

And WHY are people buying more expensive houses? They're competing for location - safe neighborhoods and good schools. But if we put more money into schools and implemented a more progressive tax structure that lowered inequality, people would be less nervous about their kids.

If you want to read more about this, read The Two Income Trap.

u/oldsillybear · 2 pointsr/Economics

I agree, I'd like to see more about disposable income.

Interested readers may want to check out, among other things, a book called The Two Income Trap

When both parents work and have kids to raise, you have additional costs, such as a second reliable car and day care / after school care. These can add up to put a big dent in that second income. Of course, there are variables, if both parents have really good jobs it makes it easier, or if you have a nearby relative to provide day care; but if one goes to work "to help pay the bills" and it is offset by $1,000 a month for day care it doesn't help as much.

u/johnpseudo · 2 pointsr/Economics

The author of this article is also the author of "the two income trap", which details precisely the problem with transportation, food, and childcare that you mentioned.

u/willcode4beer · 1 pointr/science

Yea it is. When I was married, my wife didn't work. She, the two kids and I were just fine on my income (even though it was a fraction of what I make now).

Hell, now I'm divorced, she still doesn't work and seems to be just fine on almost half my income.

Then, some economists say the whole two income thing is a trap

u/[deleted] · 1 pointr/politics

There's a book on that. The Dual Income Trap.

u/satanic_hamster · 0 pointsr/PurplePillDebate

> I ask this because even redpill guys say ridiculous things like "feminism isn't a bad idea just poorly practiced..."

Ironically, men have been the biggest benefactors of the sexual revolution and feminism since the 60's. Easy access to cheap sex is available to any man who wants to spend any time at all learning to how to manipulate women into taking their clothes off. By making the cost of obtaining sex fall to an all-time low, without serious investment and commitment, any incentives or social controls put upon men to have to take women seriously, have been washed away.

Even people like Elizabeth Warren have admitted that the drive to get women into the workplace isn't what many of them imagine it to be. And it hasn't left many families all that better off, contra the protestations of every feminist group out there, neither many women generally speaking.

u/lefthandturn · -1 pointsr/politics

I'm 26, you imbecile.

But good job denigrating evolution, saying its merely a collection of observation.

Evolution a proven fact. Classical liberalism AKA "free market" economics, which is haute bourgeois propaganda unfit for the academy. I suggest you learn how economies really operate.