Interesting. I know Elizabeth Warren had a book around the same time as that called "The Two-Income Trap". I never read it, but watched a talk on it at some point
If I'm right on the source (or even if I'm not
) the basic concept was the idea of the second earner falling into the various "systemic" traps.
Here's some of what I recall (don't quote me, 'cause I'm old and it's been a long time since I read the treatise on the subject.) I don't have numbers so let's stick to the principles.
Primary Earner earns more than secondary earner (by definition
)
1) Every dollar secondary earner makes is taxed at THE highest level the couple pay (forget fungibility of dollars for a moment.)
2) By virtue of both w*rking, stuff that a secondary earner could have done (child care, house work, menus/cooking, etc.) may need to be at least partially farmed out. (DW cooked for 6 months after we got married. She then got a j*b and we ate out from then on.) We DID share household j*bs, so... don't go there.
3) Biggie here: Secondary pays full SS (up to the limits) BUT may not make enough over life time to come out BETTER OFF by taking SS on own record. ALL paid in by secondary under that circumstance was "lost." Secondary would have gotten 1/2 of primary without w*rking.
4) Secondary earner (perhaps) requires more clothes/dry cleaning, whatever. Requires (perhaps) secondary transportation - cars are incredibly expensive - especially per mile if only driven a few miles to work.
Pretty sure there were other issues.
I am NOT against two earners in the family. DW and I did that most of our w*rking years. I realize that some folks need the w*rk experience for fulfillment, etc. BUT I can see that DW's income was ravaged by the things I gleaned from my reading of (I think) Burns and Kotlikoff. SWAG: We'd have been better off if she had not w*rked. At best, she took a huge cut in realized pay. As always, YMMV.