BlogU

  • Long Distance Mom: Myth of the Two-Income Family

    By Elizabeth Coffman May 27, 2009 10:53 pm

    The two-income family is one area in which I received no helpful advice while growing up. I was born in the mid-1960s, raised by a stay-at-home mom and working dad, watched The Brady Bunch on TV and discovered feminism in college. I have always wanted a career, a family, and a house (one, not two...) and never really thought about the time, the money or the hours in the day necessary to make it all work.

    Staying home with the kids? It wasn’t an option for me. When my children were born I was the one with the tenure-track job, so my husband stayed home (since he needed to finish his dissertation). We could not afford day care costs on my salary, and my (soon to be ex-) husband found it impossible to finish a dissertation with two children under the age of three running around.

    Talk about pressure and misunderstandings… As much as my ex and I like to think that we are a product of the postmodern political generation, we both maintained damaging stereotypes about work, parenting, and gender: I never should have commuted to work and left him home with the children. He should have finished his dissertation and earned as much money as I did.

    Many of you know elements of this story already. Aeron Haynie reminded me of Judith Warner who analyzes in her columns and books how our consumer-driven society has created a cult of competitive “hyper-parents”--paranoid moms and dads who worry that their children will be “left behind” some mysterious achievement rope, and are running themselves ragged trying to cross it. As Aeron discussed last week, the commitment to university teaching is not generally about a Suze Orman-type interest in acquiring ‘big money’ (unless you want to study how it works). What has become clear to me in the last two decades is that the two-income family has some mythical qualities to it that need to be more effectively deconstructed, particularly in the media, but also in universities.

    First, we need to have a broad, political discussion asserting that the two-income family is not working for many people. This economy, our government, and our own illusions have failed us. Yes, women have fought their ways through many glass ceilings and are allowed to dream about ambitious careers and new identities in unprecedented numbers. But women are just starting to figure out that we’ve been trumped by the economy. For most of us, supporting a house with children requires two incomes now. In addition to the complexities of managing two adults with full time careers, raising young children and maintaining a home is difficult. (I won’t even approach the single parent challenges...).

    Acknowledging these challenges does not mean that women do not have to work as much because they are the ‘natural’ caregivers, but it does mean that giving both parents better choices about parental leaves should be federal law. The United States is shockingly behind the rest of the world on maternity/parental leave compensation. I was shocked by exactly how far we are... (We line up with Lesotho.)

    Second, we need to inject Elizabeth Warren's research more fully into the mainstream media. Warren, author of The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke and the new leader of the Congressional Oversight commission for the 700 billion dollar stimulus program (TARP), greeted me on Charlie Rose the other night. Warren is an endowed Harvard law professor (2 children, divorced, remarried) who has written several national bestsellers and maintained successful blogs on law, politics and the economy with the Warren Reports, Talking Points Memo, and The Huffington Post.

    I listened to Warren describe how, since the 1980s, families with children have endured a 100% increase in housing costs, while increases in wages have not kept up with inflationary costs. In real wages, two-income families do not make any more than single-income families made in the 1970s. Warren understands that the fault lines of the economic crisis — the foreclosures, the bankruptcies, the credit defaults -- are primarily the result of families who cannot afford to survive in today’s inflated marketplace. Many of us were quickly approved for those 1st and 2nd mortgages that few of us could safely afford. Our big houses and empty savings accounts are not prepared to handle a crisis that carries big financial repercussions with it--e.g. divorce, medical issues, job losses.

    We all know that the economy will take years to improve. Housing costs may drop a bit, but wages have frozen at universities and endowments have dropped precipitously. So why aren’t more U.S. academics standing up and yelling, “This isn’t working for us!” or “We need government-subsidized child care from 12 weeks on if you want both parents to work!”?

    Other countries (the more 'socialist' ones...) do it differently. In France, for instance, besides a mandatory maternity leave of 16-26 weeks at 100% compensation, the country offers subsidized public day care and a guarantee for re-employment if either parent leaves work until the child turns 3. The silence on these issues in the U.S. media is disturbing (but not surprising). Its neglect by the academy should be embarrassing. Let’s make better parental leave a part of the national health care discussions.

Advertisement

Comments on Long Distance Mom: Myth of the Two-Income Family

  • Feminism and family leave
  • Posted by Jennifer Sanborn , Director, The Women's Education and Leadership Fund at University of Hartford on May 28, 2009 at 9:15am EDT
  • Thank you for a great column calling all of us back to an agenda that has too often been deemed unrealistic. I have always believed that feminist values are family values, and that men, children, and women stand to gain from a more equitable work and home environment. I am the full-time employee in my family; my male partner is presently home with the kids. When they were infants, I shifted to part-time while he worked full-time. There are days when our schedules and our old lingering assumptions are doing acrobatics as we strive to make creative arrangements work with little to no government or institutional support. I'm proud to lead an organization and work with a president and provost who are leading us in asking these hard questions about crafting an equitable, welcoming environment for all, but we've only just begun.... Too many of us exit the years of seemingly greatest need for our children (from birth to the start of school) and decide our energies must be focused somewhere else; we leave the agenda behind. I'm glad the conversation is being triggered by the economic downturn, despite the pain accompanying the dialogue for many families.

  • Not Just Baby Mommies
  • Posted by Reality Bites on May 28, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • Nice battle cry. So many of us have been saying the same thing for years. I realized this reality almost 17 years ago when I had my first child. I didn't have the house - I was a struggling student along with my soon-to-be-ex. After the 3rd child, he realized that being a parent and an adult and working two jobs with a wife who also worked two jobs (and we both had masters degrees) wasn't worth the trouble. Gee thanks buddy.

    I did it - looking back I don't know how but I did it. I thought the pressure would be off when the youngest hit school age. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Don't hold your breath waiting for that magic moment. Before school/after school care, school fees (huge school registration fees for public school - there is no such thing as free education in the US anymore).

    I have three kids in three different schools - high school, middle school, elementary school. Registration fees (books, registration, lab fees, mandatory activity fees - just the basic fees that are required are over $500 for the HS, $400 for the MS, and $300 for the Elem). There are other fees throughout the year that are required.

    Kids get more expensive as they older and the parental demands are greater not less. Parenting is not for wimps. The baby years are just teasers.

    I recently started saving packing boxes and told my youngest to pack his stuff. He (age 11) asked why. I told him that it is never too early to start practicing and it gives me hope that my time is almost up.

    Never had enough money to buy a house. Never took them to Disneyworld or on a cruise - heck we didn't even do vacations because of finances. They won't get a car. They will go to college on scholarships and student loans same as I did. They do however get 3.5 or higher GPA's so far. They love reading. They helped me get my doctorate degree.

    It is still a huge struggle and my company is not at all understanding of my situation and financially I am barely surviving. We live on the edge. They have grown up on the edge. I have worked two jobs most of their lives. Two income is not a luxury, it mandatory for survival. I am middle class dirt poor. I am highly educated. I am your peer. I might even be your director or your dean.

  • Posted by anon on May 28, 2009 at 1:15pm EDT
  • This is a wonderful post. I'm always shocked by how blithely Americans relinquish (or fail to demand) benefits that are basic rights throughout the developed world. How can America pretend to be family-friendly when hostility to family (and in particular to women working) is institutionalized?

    But the main comment I wanted to make was one more specific to the academy generally - the normal difficulties of two-income household are exacerbated to almost absurd degree when both spouses are academics. While some universities make occasional and exceptional attempts at dual-spouse hiring, most do not; in addition to this failing, there still remains almost unrelenting hostility to "trailing" spouses among faculty and administrators alike. The situation is becoming increasingly untenable, even unbearable, and more mothers or fathers live not only hours but time zones away from their children. My job is a six hour drive from my husband's & we have a small child. Talk about trouble making end's meet with two incomes! We have two incomes and child care expenses - in addition, high traveling costs back and forth, two rents, two sets of utility bills, etc etc. Every academic year we face the agonizing question: Will one of us quit (the job that we love, with little to no hope of a future academic career)? If so, who? Unfortunately, quitting is the only option available to us, since our respective institutions display what I believe is a misguided and counter-productive refusal to even try to resolve spousal situations. Of course women are more likely to be disadvantaged by this system, because our culture puts more weight on fathers' salaries than mothers' (in addition women still perform most of the childcare, particularly for small children). While departments and administrators put up a variety of smokescreens to fend off having to deal with spousal situations - we don't have the money! You can't make a different department hire somebody! If we had a policy then the university could force us to hire an incompetent person! etc - the refusal to deal with dual career academics is a high number (and getting higher) of retention problems, particularly of talented, young female faculty. Part of the issue is one of perspective. Those resisting dealing with this problem *only* frame the issue in negative terms. A very small handful of universities are realizing that more-or-less routine spousal hiring can have a dramatically *positive* effect on the university - high morale, recruitment without effort of very talented faculty, end to retention problems, the end of the intellectual and institutional drain of having a number of faculty on staff who actually live somewhere else (often very far away), and recruitment of female faculty and faculty of color, to name only a few. My former university lost an extremely talented African-American faculty member because of a refusal to make a spousal accommodation - whereas, had the university *made* the spousal hire, this faculty member probably would have stayed out his/her career at the university, even though s/he could have gotten (and in fact did get) a job at a significantly better institution.

  • Lesotho Link
  • Posted by Philip on May 28, 2009 at 4:30pm EDT
  • The link to how the U.S. and Lesotho are on par for their dismal lack of support for new parents does not work. This is a valuable statistic. Can you provide a clear link?

    Thanks!

  • Maternity Leave link
  • Posted by Elizabeth Coffman on May 28, 2009 at 11:00pm EDT
  • Sorry about that.

    I found it on the Australian Professional Women's Network site:

    http://www.apesma.asn.au/women/maternity_leave_around_the_world.asp

    Study done by Maternity Protection ILO Convention No. 183, June 2001, published by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, the Public Services International and Education International.

  • Posted by Suzanne Tomlinaon at Retired School Principal on May 31, 2009 at 3:00pm EDT
  • Elizabeth, Your Dad sent this to me and I wanted to say how much I learned in reading it. You have heightened awareness of an important issue in an eloquent manner. Best wishes...Suzanne

  • Posted by Switz on June 5, 2009 at 4:00pm EDT
  • Yes, our social policies could be more family-friendly, but too many of us have basically bought into the idea that we need two incomes to have a decent life. I've never agreed with Elizabeth Warren's work on this, which seems to be relevant only for certain expensive areas in the country, not most of country.

    If one is more modest about consumption, including housing, it is quite easy to live on one modest salary and have plenty to save or give to charity (with a few areas excepted). When we had two kids, I was surprised to find out we were spending no more than $20,000 a year. Now with three, it's at most in the mid-20s. But we are "simple-livers" and I guess this does not fit well with a high-consuming American culture. There is plenty of advice out there for people on how to do this, and more people than you think follow this lifestyle!