> I'm really not following Warren's reasoning here.
First of all, with two incomes, if one person loses a job, you still have cash coming in. On average, the drop is from 100% of normal cash flow to 50% of normal. With one income it is from from 100% to 0%. Yes, the other spouse can get a job, but that takes time, maybe days, maybe months.
The general crux of Warren's argument, is that the fixed costs incurred by the necessity of women working is so large that it basically made household income a zero sum game.
Previously, one person made income Y, and if the breadwinner became unable to work then they made some amount close to or smaller than Y.
Today, two people each make X, and also have to pay childcare and additional commuting or other expenses of Z every day.
Warren's assertion is that overall, today 2X-Z <= Y, because women increased the labor supply so much that wages were suppressed; so that Y for one person eventually became X for two people in a household. Depending on how bad the decline is, X may be a lot worse than a new, untrained wife making less than Y.
The general crux of Warren's argument, is that the fixed costs incurred by the necessity of women working is so large that it basically made household income a zero sum game.
Previously, one person made income Y, and if the breadwinner became unable to work then they made some amount close to or smaller than Y.
Today, two people each make X, and also have to pay childcare and additional commuting or other expenses of Z every day.
Warren's assertion is that overall, today 2X-Z <= Y, because women increased the labor supply so much that wages were suppressed; so that Y for one person eventually became X for two people in a household. Depending on how bad the decline is, X may be a lot worse than a new, untrained wife making less than Y.