newtimbuktu's review
3.0
"When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time". Maya Angelou
A text which attempts to eliminate the shame of people who have bankruptcy and reframe bankruptcy not as an individual moral failing, but as a social issue.
It's frame clearly shows the author believes in the justness of the rules of American capitalism, and sees the production of a strong middle-class base of one income homes in 20th century America as proof the value of American capitalism, and attempts to explain how this promise is increasingly failing Americas of the 21st century. The racially exclusive nature of the "broad" middle-class success and the necessity of strong labor unions to force corporations to create the conditions which allowed this success is not meaningfully addressed. While many argue the mid 20th century is a clear historical anomaly in terms of capitalisms' ability to produce (slightly) more equitable wealth creation, Warren sees it as the norm and seeks to recapture it. At the end of the introduction, the author literally says her goal is to "Make the American Middle Class great again".
In the process, the author deeply underestimates the levels of instability people are facing and fails to disaggregate data along racial lines, generally producing a somewhat superficial and capricious defense of the redeemability of American capitalism. The demand for homes in "good school districts" is seen as a key driver of the two-income trap, but the nature of white flight and the racist formula of funding schools based on property tax valuation is never questioned. A desire for strong family stability is affirmed without any real recognition of the need for the production of community, not merely a secure nuclear family, is a critical metric of quality of life for many people. Racist subprime lending is called out, but the prison industrial complex is ignored, Most damming is the author's complex lack of acknowledgment of the wealth gap between Blacks and Whites, a stunning omission given the critical role family wealth plays in determining who goes bankrupt.
Ultimately, the author's theory of change is centered on middle-class agitation around the increasing precarity of access to the American Dream. Restated, this could also be seen as an attempt to harness frustration around increasing difficulty to access what one could call American white privilege (house in the suburbs, nice schools, two cars, etc). Rather than a whole scale questioning of the historical inequity and violence which produces inequality in America, Warren defends reformist measures targeted at the middle class, and on page 94 explicitly states:
"We haven't suggested a complete overhaul of the tax structure, and we haven't demanded that businesses cease and desist from ever closing another plant or firing another worker. Nor have we suggested that the United States should build a quasi-socialist safety net to rival the European model. All of the solutions we have proposed thus far—creating tax incentives for saving, expanding state-funded disability coverage, and encouraging families to insure themselves against an uncertain future—can be implemented within America's current blend of public and private systems without drastic changes or massive tax increases."
This admission shows the reformist spirit of a former Republican which belies her claims, later in her career, to have been a consistent advocate of "Big Structural Change".
This reformism ultimately undermines the goal of the book. She argues debtors deserve respect because they played followed the rules of the game, and thus should get empathy and technocratic tweaks to the rules. This ultimately reifies belief in the fundamental justness of American capitalism and the book's individualist frame replicates an inward-facing, solipsistic way of viewing the world which ultimately promotes an atomized view of social change more amenable to family financial planning (which the book offers some decent advice on) than promoting fundamental structural change and collective action.
While the book does call for collective action, it is within a very narrow frame of limiting corporations to "fair profits" and promoting" school vouchers", a frame which is completely consistent with the market-centric, neoliberal world view which produces the very problems the book claims to want to solve.
A text which attempts to eliminate the shame of people who have bankruptcy and reframe bankruptcy not as an individual moral failing, but as a social issue.
It's frame clearly shows the author believes in the justness of the rules of American capitalism, and sees the production of a strong middle-class base of one income homes in 20th century America as proof the value of American capitalism, and attempts to explain how this promise is increasingly failing Americas of the 21st century. The racially exclusive nature of the "broad" middle-class success and the necessity of strong labor unions to force corporations to create the conditions which allowed this success is not meaningfully addressed. While many argue the mid 20th century is a clear historical anomaly in terms of capitalisms' ability to produce (slightly) more equitable wealth creation, Warren sees it as the norm and seeks to recapture it. At the end of the introduction, the author literally says her goal is to "Make the American Middle Class great again".
In the process, the author deeply underestimates the levels of instability people are facing and fails to disaggregate data along racial lines, generally producing a somewhat superficial and capricious defense of the redeemability of American capitalism. The demand for homes in "good school districts" is seen as a key driver of the two-income trap, but the nature of white flight and the racist formula of funding schools based on property tax valuation is never questioned. A desire for strong family stability is affirmed without any real recognition of the need for the production of community, not merely a secure nuclear family, is a critical metric of quality of life for many people. Racist subprime lending is called out, but the prison industrial complex is ignored, Most damming is the author's complex lack of acknowledgment of the wealth gap between Blacks and Whites, a stunning omission given the critical role family wealth plays in determining who goes bankrupt.
Ultimately, the author's theory of change is centered on middle-class agitation around the increasing precarity of access to the American Dream. Restated, this could also be seen as an attempt to harness frustration around increasing difficulty to access what one could call American white privilege (house in the suburbs, nice schools, two cars, etc). Rather than a whole scale questioning of the historical inequity and violence which produces inequality in America, Warren defends reformist measures targeted at the middle class, and on page 94 explicitly states:
"We haven't suggested a complete overhaul of the tax structure, and we haven't demanded that businesses cease and desist from ever closing another plant or firing another worker. Nor have we suggested that the United States should build a quasi-socialist safety net to rival the European model. All of the solutions we have proposed thus far—creating tax incentives for saving, expanding state-funded disability coverage, and encouraging families to insure themselves against an uncertain future—can be implemented within America's current blend of public and private systems without drastic changes or massive tax increases."
This admission shows the reformist spirit of a former Republican which belies her claims, later in her career, to have been a consistent advocate of "Big Structural Change".
This reformism ultimately undermines the goal of the book. She argues debtors deserve respect because they played followed the rules of the game, and thus should get empathy and technocratic tweaks to the rules. This ultimately reifies belief in the fundamental justness of American capitalism and the book's individualist frame replicates an inward-facing, solipsistic way of viewing the world which ultimately promotes an atomized view of social change more amenable to family financial planning (which the book offers some decent advice on) than promoting fundamental structural change and collective action.
While the book does call for collective action, it is within a very narrow frame of limiting corporations to "fair profits" and promoting" school vouchers", a frame which is completely consistent with the market-centric, neoliberal world view which produces the very problems the book claims to want to solve.
mollyhuie's review
3.0
This book was very enlightening about the economics of why two-income households can be worse off financially than one would assume (because they have two incomes, they should be making it work, right?!). They present compelling data about mortgage and credit lending, but I wish it were updated.
booksaremagic's review
3.0
Read this book for the survey/research data. It's compelling and some of it is counterintuitive. I like the chapter that gives families some tips for how to conduct their financial lives better with the new insight gained from that data. Much of the advice in the book is about changing policies, laws, school systems. That part fails to capture my attention but then again I am a cynic when it comes to large systems and institutions.
I love Walden by Thoreau and Gandhi's thoughts on the quality life, so I am inclined to think favorably about less-is-more: in this case, fewer earners in a family equaling more financial flexibility especially in times of emergency. I also love staying at home and educating my own kids (although I am currently in the outside-the-home work force). For people who have not considered a one-income family or have not considered ways to tone down the rat race, this book might provide a helpful alternate point of view.
I love Walden by Thoreau and Gandhi's thoughts on the quality life, so I am inclined to think favorably about less-is-more: in this case, fewer earners in a family equaling more financial flexibility especially in times of emergency. I also love staying at home and educating my own kids (although I am currently in the outside-the-home work force). For people who have not considered a one-income family or have not considered ways to tone down the rat race, this book might provide a helpful alternate point of view.
douglasjsellers's review
3.0
Ultimate this book would have made a great blog post but makes a mediocre book.
Let me summarize. Two income families have become the norm. This has caused the price of everything, especially housing, child care and schools to skyrocket - causing families to have their fixed costs to now require both salaries. This has doubled the chance of one partner experiencing hardship sinking the whole enterprise. Lesson: talk through what would happen if you have to live on just one salary.
Let me summarize. Two income families have become the norm. This has caused the price of everything, especially housing, child care and schools to skyrocket - causing families to have their fixed costs to now require both salaries. This has doubled the chance of one partner experiencing hardship sinking the whole enterprise. Lesson: talk through what would happen if you have to live on just one salary.
pagesofkelsey's review
3.0
Though I greatly admire Elizabeth Warren, this was just too repetitive. Could have been pared down to the length of a magazine feature and been much better for it. An updated version would be of interest post Great Recession.
More...