• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

There is something beyond the obvious hardship implied in this litany that is important to notice. The “safety net” provided by each of these programs serves only one segment of the population: the poor. Nearly all these programs involve a stringent means test, making them available only to those near or below the poverty line. They are designed to keep hunger, disease, and destitution at bay for the poorest members of society, at least for a while.

But what about the middle class? What is their safety net? Where do they turn in the case of a calamity? Unemployment insurance offers modest protection, and Social Security protects against penury in old age. But there is little more. For most families to qualify for any other form of government assistance, they would have to forgo everything that makes them middle-class—their homes, their jobs, their places in their communities.

There is little discussion about the safety net for middle-income families, no wise folks expounding about it on the Sunday talk shows, no long articles about it in the newspapers. The reason may be that the middle-class safety net isn’t built with taxpayers’ dollars. It is a private safety net, built family by family, home by home, far from the spotlight of media attention. The first lines of defense are the insurance policies, offering at least some financial protection against accident, illness, and death. Next is cash in the bank that can be tapped when the family has sudden needs. But there is another line of defense for families with children, another type of insurance that has been widely overlooked.

For middle-class families, the most important part of the safety net for generations has been the stay-at-home mother.

Today’s wisdom holds that a couple that sends both spouses into the workforce is better off economically. They may be stressed out, they may feel guilty about sending their kids to day care, and they may have too little time for each other, but the one piece of good news that the family can count on is that they are more financially secure. The view is familiar, repeated with comforting regularity. “Jason’s company isn’t doing well. But if something happens to his job, at least Melinda is working.” Or “The new house will be a stretch, but at least there are two of us to manage it.” A recent book entitled She Works /He Works: How Two-Income Families Are Happier, Healthier, and Better-Off sums up this perspective:

Because they have two full incomes that help buffer them against the terrible wrenches of a changing economy, they do not feel the gut-wrenching vulnerability of standing at the edge of a precipice, ready at any second to topple off the cliff if a company downsizes or relocates. . . . The dual earner family offers economic stability, protection against financial disaster.1

Stability and protection—delicious ideas for the modern family—and exactly what everyone knows a second income provides.

But what if it doesn’t? What if the modern two-earner couple is actually more vulnerable than the traditional single-breadwinner family?

A generation or so ago (and even today), the typical one-earner family usually described the father as responsible for the economic health of the family, with the mother assigned to roles such as homemaker or helpmate. To the extent that she had an economic role, it was seen as one of careful spending; it was her job to ensure that Dad’s salary went as far as possible, and so she mended torn shirts, packed bag lunches, and counted the family’s pennies. Her economic contribution, in effect, was that of careful guardian of what her husband brought home.

But this traditional view was far too narrow. It conjures up an image of the stay-at-home mother who was forever confined to the home, unable or unwilling to make a financial contribution even when her family faced disaster. If her husband lost his job, she could do little more than stand by helplessly and wring her hands, or maybe clip a few more coupons and dilute the soup