[3] However, Warren and Tyagi dismiss the idea of return to stay-at-home parents, and instead propose policies to offset the loss of this form of insurance.

In order to decouple educational opportunity from real estate location, they propose allowing families to choose among public schools in their district, with a voucher system.

[4] Warren and Tyagi also call for the restoration of "usury laws" limiting credit interest rates, and increased disclosure requirements for creditors.

[4] In his review for The New York Times, economic policy consultant Jeff Madrick wrote that Warren and Tyagi "draw too fine a point here and there", but that ultimately "their main thesis is undeniable".

[8] In her review for the journal Educational Horizons, educator Audrey Ricker commented that the book "does a wonderful job of explaining why the American middle class is built on shifting sand", but criticized Warren and Tyagi for failing to explore opportunities afforded by a lower-income lifestyle, and for not including any interviews with families living in reduced economic circumstances.

While he concedes that the book contains "valuable nuggets", he believes that its central premise is "based on what can only be described as a completely bogus and misleading analysis of income and consumption trends over time."

Bruenig chalks up the apparent discrepancy behind the "two-income trap" to methodological mistakes on Warren's part, such as her making use of the wrong inflation index in her calculations.

He criticizes other oversights on her part, such as citing increased housing costs without considering the trend towards purchasing larger homes in recent decades.