Independent, while she uses the mom/dad/2 kids as it is the most common family "format"... many of her points could be made for singles, those with above-average income, AND retirees.
People on this board are pretty well off.. and I see many struggling with care of parents.. or in some cases partners, or even children or grandchildren who are ill or need care. If a couple (gay or straight, kids or no kids) NEEDS two incomes for a middle-class lifestyle.. they are behind the 8-ball if anything happens, period. They are still further "behind" than their 1970s analogs, and there has been REgression rather than PROgression. Increased productivity, etc. has not brought increased wealth or leisure or security over the last 30-40 years, to the extent that we have been led to believe.
You ask "and the myths are?" Uhm... the myths are that people have overextended themselves primarily due to frivolous consumer habits (SUVs, fancy clothes, etc.). I thought that was pretty obvious.
One of the "myths" that I've read is that since the US GDP per capita has been going up, "most people" are doing pretty well. People who promote this often look at mean (instead of median) incomes, and at family incomes, without noting the additional workers. It was easier to find pieces like this a year ago than today, but I'm sure I've read them.
Another "myth" is that we've got a complete disaster. People can't possibly live as well as their parents.
I don't believe either.
Prof Warren paints families as struggling to hold on while they are tossed about by forces beyond their control. There is some truth to that. Real wages for males have been about flat for the last 30 years. Medical care costs really have gone up faster than most other expenses. Both of these are beyond the control of families.
But then she says that savings rates are down. That's not beyond people's control. Her suggestion is that people are buying essentially the same things they did a generation ago, but they have to spend 101% of their (two) incomes to do that. I'm skeptical.
I wish I could spend a couple days with some median one income families in 1970 and see where they lived, what they drove, what they ate, etc. and then do the same thing with the median two income families in 2003. My thought is that things which used to be "nice to have" are now "neccessities".
I'm old enough to remember 1970, in fact I got married and bought a car that year. I look around today and the average American "car" seems bigger, more powerful, with more gadgets than what we had then. Warren says that Americans are spending a lower percent of their income per car. She doesn't say that in spite of this they are getting nicer cars. In 2003, automakers had big rebates on their compact fuel efficient cars because nobody wanted to buy them. If people were content with the basic cars from a generation ago, they'd be spending even less today.
My impression is that this is true about most things. We're spending a lower percent of our incomes on food and clothes, but we're still getting "better" (more of what we want, not necessarily healthier) food and clothes.
I think part of the issue is expectations. People really expected to do better than their parents. After all, that had always been the American experience. And they thought that if they had two incomes, they should do a lot better than their parents (Warren says this is what she expected, too). But it didn't happen. People are working more hours, and getting just modest gains in material goods. That feels "wrong".
But I don't see that they're doing a lot worse, just not a lot better. People spend their entire incomes and go into debt to afford the things they think they should be able to afford instead of settling for the things they really can afford. Then they are at risk for the first financial bump in the road.