10 ms·

Gen Z are turning to delusional thinking to cope

anovikov 3y ago
I wonder if population stabilisation will mean there will simply be a lot less demand for new homes. People will mostly live in what they inherit, just like they do in Europe where the same thing happened a generation earlier. With U.S. population set to grow by only 20% by the end of century (same growth as it had from 2000 till now), how many new homes will at all be needed? So i agree that they don't plan to buy real estate. They will not need to. There are as many children 0-5 years old in America today as 50-55 people. By the time the former will need to buy their first home the latter will be dying to leave it to them.
- ido 3y ago
  I don't know where in Europe you experienced people mostly living in the homes they inherited. I've lived in Austria and Germany since 2005 and 2013 respectively and I think I know maybe one person who lives in the apartment their grandmother left them after she passed away? That's in no way standard/expected. Also despite most/all of Europe having had low fertility rate for a long time, there's still a lot of growth in some places and decline in others (mostly people moving from rural areas into the big cities, and from the poorer countries into richer ones). So stuff isn't static even if the total population number didn't change much.
  - ChuckNorris89 3y ago
    >I don't know where in Europe you experienced people mostly living in the homes they inherited. In present Austria. The one you lived in till 2013 doesn't exist anymore. Buying something decent today in one of the "major" cities is impossible even on tech wages. Just got offered 2600 Euros take home salary for a product owner position while people are asking for 700k Euros for 20 year old houses outside of the city.
    - ido 3y ago
      So you know many Austrians your age that live in inherited homes? I still visit Vienna 3x a year (my in-laws still live there), nobody I know there lives in inherited homes, they mostly rent (old contract if they're lucky, new one if not). The same is true in Berlin, those that can live in an inherited home are a tiny minority.
      - ChuckNorris89 3y ago
        >So you know many Austrians your age that live in inherited homes? Not directly, but in various forms yes, the young can only afford to buy property if helped out with funds from their wealthy parents . It's not directly inheriting, but it's still generational wealth transfer. My ex, her parents bought her an apartment in the city center when she moved to study (not Viena, another big city). When I went to a house visit to see who can afford to pay 700k on a run down old house, it was moistly Zoomers with wealthy parents there to purchase a nest egg for their kids. And the whole new vs old contract situation is again a generational wealth transfer. Those long ion the market sitting on cheap old contracts are swinging the balance the other direction for those new on the market who must pay exorbitant prices if they enter the market now. Renting and being dependent on a landlord your whole life is also not ideal, especially if you didn't luck out to get locked into an older rent controlled contract at a good price, which is putting pressure on people wanting to move to a bigger palce and start families. Move to Vienna now and check out the rent prices. >The same is true in Berlin, those that can live in an inherited home are a tiny minority. Because Berlin demographics are mostly foreigners, but Germany is a lot bigger than Belrin, and housing there, like in Austria revolves around getting funded by the mom and dad to get intot he market.
        ido 3y ago
        I don't refute anything you say, it just sounded like OP thought something like "well in Europe they all just live in their inherited ancestral homes" where as the reality is that people mostly rent, and of those that own a lot of people bought new homes via parental support (which is still not the same as the supposedly hobbit-esque family domicile that passed from one generation to the next for the last 400 years we all supposedly live in). I'm sure there really are centuries old farmhouses in Tyrol that really work like OP mentioned, but it's not the common way for Europeans to live.
- xvedejas 3y ago
  Given that we're already at the limit with regards to housing supply, I'm not sure that demand-side changes will make housing affordable unless the population very actively shrinks. Even in Latvia, a country with one of the fastest declining populations in the world, housing is getting more expensive, and has been getting more expensive basically every year since 2009. Consider also how strong immigration to the US is. How is it not just cope, to have confidence that there will simply be enough housing one day due to only demographic concerns and no other action?
  - imchillyb 3y ago
    > Given that we're already at the limit with regards to housing supply... That's a patently false statement. There is room for exponential growth in housing. There is money for that exponential growth. Those with the monies to do so simply aren't spending it on housing for median income families, single persons, elderly persons, homeless persons, etc. Those with the financial ability simply don't spend in that manner. There is no 'supply shortage' of housing. There are, however, discriminatory housing policies, practices, procedures, and fees.
    - anovikov 3y ago
      In a way we are. If you take the satisfaction survey among Americans, while overall life satisfaction numbers today are mediocre (about average or even slightly below average from 1980), among particular categories, satisfaction with housing situation is among the highest ever, much higher than satisfaction with income, family life, health, etc. Which means, because U.S. is a democratic country, it will be incredibly difficult to build any new housing as most voters are satisfied with theirs so for them, getting more housing is a lot less important than getting more equity on existing - and precondition for that is limiting new supply. https://news.gallup.com/poll/470888/americans-largely-satisfied-personal-life.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/470888/americans-largely-satisf... On the flip side, it probably suggests that perception of housing problem in the U.S. is mostly because of, just as with many other things, a small but very vocal minority for who it's indeed the case. It doesn't shake the economy nearly as much as it seems to be shaking public perception.
    - 3y ago
- dalben 3y ago
  While there is population stabilisation, there's also changing demographics. Immigration, more single people (or people waiting until later in life to move in together), and an aging population that prefers to live at home will still put pressure on the housing market even though we are over "peak child" - that was the conclusion I reached when I researched the housing market in my EU country and why I decided to buy an apartment this year, coupled with low mortgage rates.
  - ChuckNorris89 3y ago
    >buy an apartment this year, coupled with low mortgage rates Where were there low mortgage rates this year?
jdmoreira 3y ago
Devastating I think. We created a world where young people feel hopeless. I don't blame them, it truly doesn't look good. I'm a millennial so I can absolutely related to the hustle mentality but it still feels very grim all around. Can't really blame younger people for giving up.
- ido 3y ago
  As a geriatric millennial (born '83) I find the hustle absolutely exhausting, especially when you feel like you have to run just to stay in place.
  - jdmoreira 3y ago
    I'm born 84. Still haven't given up! Maybe one day I will throw in the towel (Would rather have some millions in the bank by then)
    - mdrzn 3y ago
      Born 92 and I'm already fucking tired of this.
      - znpy 3y ago
        '92 here too. glad to see i'm not the only one.
  - jwestbury 3y ago
    I'm not sure if being born in '86 makes me a geriatric millennial, but I certainly find that I identify far more with the popular notion of Gen Z than the popular notion of millennials -- and I generally find the same is true amongst my fellow millennials, who have no interest in hustle culture, in dedicating their lives to their work, etc. I think, much as millennials were a decade ago, Gen Z is just a straw man to explain why the world is the way it is. It's the same thing that happens with, for instance, interest rates -- financial reporters always ascribe central interest rates to a particular phenomenon, but as soon as their preferred cause proves unrelated, they find a new certain cause.
titzer 3y ago
Ironic that nearly all the problems listed in the article are due to there being literally too much money in the system. That's what 3 rounds of massive stimulus, absurdly low interest rates, unnaturally low upper income tax rates, and persistent deficit spending will get you. One generation absolutely hammering the next with debt and no onramp to prosperity.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ChuckNorris89 3y ago
  One easy fix: wealth tax && unused property/land tax
  - voisin 3y ago
    Not if the tax revenue just gets handed over to BigCo via subsidies & bailouts or squandered on war.
  - jdmoreira 3y ago
    The truly wealthy are impossible to tax. They will just move their wealth elsewhere or exploit all kinds of loopholes. Best you can do is tax income a lot and capital gains at 30%. Which is exactly what we do in Europe.
    - pydry 3y ago
      Good luck moving property.
    - green_man_lives 3y ago
      This argument is so lazy. Simply levy a tax on them each year that is their net worth multiplied by the risk-free rate. That takes care of most people with money in publicly traded companies. If people with more "diversified" portfolios try to move their money elsewhere, penalize them for it. Revoke their citizenship, make it harder for them to do business without a majority percentage of their wealth in the US. It's not "hard" to do, we just lack the political will.
christkv 3y ago
Is this not "The Secret" all over again with a new generation ?
jasonlotito 3y ago
> Examples of this “radical” ideology include not getting married, not having children, not buying a house or a car, and refusing to work extra hours or to hold a job at all. Refusing to work extra hours is an example of a "radical" ideology? Am I missing something? I'm seriously asking because this sounds like the whole "quiet quitting" thing that highlighted corporations expecting unpaid labor as a given. None of these sound radical. Maybe not holding a job at all, but at the same time, for a long time, that was the norm for a substantial portion of the population (and frankly, it still is).
- stranded22 3y ago
  I agree with you - the whole quiet quitting was a trigger phrase for me.
- blitz_skull 3y ago
  You're not missing anything. The entire article is a Gen-Zer complaining about the plight of Gen-Zer's with basically no substance to the article. It's written as if "young people" are the only ones affected by high inflation and expensive housing. I see this attitude from time-to-time in the younger Gen-Z's. There's this belief that somehow life was supposed to be made "easy" for them, and they are wildly offended that life isn't easy.
  - ChuckNorris89 3y ago
    >I see this attitude from time-to-time in the younger Gen-Z's. There's this belief that somehow life was supposed to be made "easy" for them, and they are wildly offended that life isn't easy. To be fair, certain things have been made much easier for them. Sure, getting a house ie even more difficult for ever new generation, but, as an older millennial, I would have killed to have had access to the same mental, acne and dental treatments, that Gen-Z has access to today, and also, to the vast and easy to access community contributed information pool on the internat on topics like emigration, taxes, jobs, financial investment and career advice, dating advice, that's so easy to get nowadays versus 10-20 years ago. It would have made my teenage and adult life much, much easier on all fronts.
fnord77 3y ago
> late-stage capitalism Fortune publishing Marxist articles now?
- h05sz487b 3y ago
  Using that term unironically is a coping mechanism in itself. Capitalism isn‘t going away.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- crote 3y ago
  No, "late-stage capitalism" is pretty mainstream these days. It is getting quite obvious that the current way we are handling the economy isn't working anymore. No need to go full-blown communism, but we do need to do something different pretty soon.
  - vxNsr 3y ago
    If that something is more regulation, more wealth redistribution, more finger pointing… it’s not gonna have the effect you expect. Delusional is absolutely the correct term for how most gen-z’s think.
alexb_ 3y ago
> New and often controversial lifestyles are proliferating on platforms like TikTok, such as “bimbo culture” and “stay-at-home girlfriends.” The hashtag “#Bimbofication” has garnered over 275 million views on TikTok. Meanwhile “sugar daddy dating” reportedly spiked 74% on the platform SeekingArrangement during the pandemic. Is the article seriously, unironically talking about view counts on fetish hashtags as a sort of evidence point?
- thefz 3y ago
  I am also very tired with parsing of social media trends to prove a point. These are a subset of a subset of the population and don't mean much when we account for curious viewers, casual viewers, ironic viewers. Also, the subset of the population perusing social media is low. Even lower when we divide this subset by social media platform. The trends and fleeting passions of the ultra young do not reflect 100% of the population at all.
- phil917 3y ago
  While I agree it's not some irrefutable data point, I think it does at least give some indication as to the current zeitgeist.
- vxNsr 3y ago
  That fact that it un-ironically uses the term “late stage capitalism” should tell you all you need to know about the author, article and publication.
  - UtopiaPunk 3y ago
    What does it tell you?
- UtopiaPunk 3y ago
  I think this small section of the article is what resonated with me the least, but then they could use the "delusional" headline. Almost everything else in the article either matches my own outlook or at least makes a lot of sense to me. And I'm not gen Z, I'm just a frustrated guy in my 30s.
jacknews 3y ago
I can assure you it's not only gen-Z 'late-stage' capitalism is just not working for a large section of society between the crapification of everything, 'optimization' of working practices, and hunger-games/got-talent tournaments even for that privilege, monopolies sprouting up everywhere, casino stock-markets, arbitrary government rules/enforcement, bylaws, and especially 'private law' (landlord rules, credit requirements, company policies/rules, etc, etc), it's becoming increasingly intolerable to live in the system as it stands
alecst 3y ago
> Mental well-being, personal growth, and fulfillment are being reprioritized ahead of financial gain: 73% of Gen Z would rather have a better quality of life than extra money in the bank, and 66% are only interested in finances as a way to support their other interests in life. What's wrong with the other 27%/34%?
- Mordisquitos 3y ago
  Indeed. I found it surreal that the article implies that it is somehow irrational or shocking to prefer quality of life over money, or to see financial gain as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. The quoted 73%/66% of Gen Z who display these preferences seems low to me! However, you know what's even more ridiculous about this paragraph? The linked source[0] actually compares Gen Z's preferences with those of the general population... and guess what? For preferring quality of life over money it is 73% Gen Z vs 70% general population, and for valuing finances just as a way to support other interests in life it is 66% Gen Z vs 61% general population! Hardly a monumental shift in attitudes, maybe even within the margin of error. It looks like this article is a delusional attempt by the author to cope with the fact that people behave as mortal animals with personal lives and individual interests and desires, rather than behaving as an immortal financial maximiser wrapped in a meat sack. [0] (PDF, page 21/27) https://www.intuit.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Intuit-Prosperity-Index-Report_US_Jan-2023.pdf https://www.intuit.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Intui...
ericd 3y ago
This seems like low quality blogspam composed of a few random anecdotes used to generalize across an entire generation. At the bottom, there’s a big disclaimer about how posts on Fortune don’t reflect the views of Fortune. Guessing this is just some part of their unmoderated/unedited blogging platform.
eadmund 3y ago
> Gen Z’s economic outlook is bleak That really depends on what one means by ‘outlook.’ If one means their perception of the present and future, then yeah, it’s bleak. But if one means their actual present and likely future, then my understanding is that Gen Z are wealthier than the Millennials were at their age; the Millennials in turn are wealthier than Gen X were at their age; Gen X are wealthier than the Baby Boomers were at their age; and of course the Baby Boomers are wealthier than preceding generations. Compounding interest really is a miracle, and it’s not just a financial one.
- crote 3y ago
  This is no longer true. Gen Z and late-stage Millenials are the first generation since WWII who are worse off than their parents. Education and housing have become completely unaffordable to them, and wages have been stagnant for decades. Compounding interest doesn't mean crap when you have no wealth to receive interest from in the first place.
- eliasmacpherson 3y ago
  What formed your understanding? My understanding is that the opposite is true, I've read numerous articles to that effect, here's but one example: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charting-the-growing-generational-wealth-gap/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charting-the-growing-genera... One quote: "But the difference is as much in assets as it is in opportunity. In 1989, Baby Boomers and Generation X under 40 accounted for 13% of household wealth, compared to just 5.9% for Millennials and Generation Z under 40 in 2020."
  - MattPalmer1086 3y ago
    If you take Gen X to range from 1965 to 1980, everyone in Gen X would be under 40 in 1989. The oldest would be only 24, and most of them would still be children. So unsurprising they don't account for much household wealth in that time!
    - eliasmacpherson 3y ago
kenada 3y ago
> The traditional markers of financial success—from owning a home to snagging that corner office at work—are becoming not only less attainable but also less valuable for Gen Zers. To be fair, those corner offices might not even exist anymore depending on the employer. From when I started working part-time in college in the early ’00s through today, those sorts of things have disappeared. I remember how the programmers where I first worked in an entry-level position out of college had their own offices. I’m a staff engineer now, and I don’t even have my own desk (because it’s an open office with hoteling). I hate it.
damnesian 3y ago
>Some young people have adopted a sort of financial nihilism as a response to deteriorating economic conditions, eschewing traditional capitalist norms for ones that are decidedly more self-serving and self-indulgent. Not at all unexpected reaction to, if you look at it closely, an incredibly depressing present and future- IF the status quo persists. This level of disaffection is the perfect fuel for a revolution, if young adults choose to make it so. But I don't know how reliable the Gen Z voting tsunami truly is if people escape too far down their fantasy holes.
- dataworm 3y ago
  Voting is not revolution and not enough to fix this broken system.
KaiserPro 3y ago
> only 41% expect to own a home one day. This may be because they’re young, and such financial goals seem too far away to properly comprehend I'm not GenZ, but I can see their point here. Average house prices in and around lover are 520k, the avergae wage for someone in london is <40k. its totally unobtanium
- helij 3y ago
  30% of 25-year olds owned their home in 2022.[0] [0]https://www.redfin.com/news/gen-z-millennial-homeownership-rate-home-purchases/ https://www.redfin.com/news/gen-z-millennial-homeownership-r...
  - KaiserPro 3y ago
    So less than 41% then...
    - helij 3y ago
      Yes, less than 41% but they are under 25. It's reasonable to believe that many more from their generation will own a place where they live in the next 15 years.
krapp 3y ago
And Timothy Leary said "turn on, tune in, drop out" back in the 1960s. None of the social phenomena presented here are new, all this has happened before. And honestly, placing more emphasis on personal well-being and self-interest and less on being a slave to the grind is a good thing. To hell with the Protestant work ethic.
xk_id 3y ago
Really upsetting to see people dismissing or downplaying this article. Not only I resonate personally with every sentence in it, but I also recognise it almost universally among my peers. The radical rejection of any hope in traditional strategies for personal finance (like the belief that learning economically relevant skills is worth it in the long term) is for me the tangible reality and while I don’t see a valid alternative to it, I’m nevertheless concerned about its long term implications. One thing I feel the article has omitted is how the surging popularity of crypto speculation and chatGPT are also symptomatic: they appeal to people lacking technical abilities, who hope that by pulling the gambling lever on a science-fiction blackbox, fortune will provide them with the breakthrough worthy of a genius.
- ryandrake 3y ago
  It's getting to the point where every realistic path to success is rooted in gambling/chance. The 1950s "risk free, steady job" at the mill has gone away and in its place we have The Gig Economy where you enter the Thunderdome with everyone else and your success is determined by hustle or chance that you get enough gigs. Interest from saving money in a bank or with a CD has gone away, and instead you're expected to put your money on the stock market roulette wheel and pray. Cheap education and "white collar jobs for just graduating" are gone, now you're expected to make a huge, multi-hundred-thousand dollar financial bet on a particular degree at the age of 18 and hope against hope it translates into a middle class future. No surprise to me that these generations feel it's hopeless and disenfranchised. If we survive, future generations are going to write about the ills of structuring a society so centered around luck and random chance.
  - ericd 3y ago
    >It's getting to the point where every realistic path to success is rooted in gambling/chance. I don't see how that's true? If you're well educated in something useful and you're conscientious, there are a lot of corporate jobs that pay more than enough to sock away a good amount of savings, especially if you're willing to stay frugal. And if you're not particularly well educated in the college sense, but are willing to work hard, good tradespeople are in incredibly high demand. But certainly, some sectors have become more difficult to make your way in. In terms of investing/gambling, the Buffett method of buying solid companies that make things that people need at a reasonable price is still much more reliable than hopping on the latest hype train. The hordes of WSB/GME bagholders would have been much better off just buying into Berkshire and then doing something more productive with their time. But I guess that's less fun than chanting "apes together strong" and imagining that you're sticking it to the hedge funds. Anyway, I hope we can channel some of this disaffection and anger into getting a carbon tax passed, with a rebate and border adjustment. In addition to being the best hope I see against climate change, it will likely make local manufacturing more competitive, and therefore give people who want to do those kinds of jobs more leverage to demand better pay. And since the rich are responsible for much more carbon generation than the poor, an equal rebate should leave the poor ahead even despite the inflation it would cause, and help reduce wealth inequality.
glimshe 3y ago
Almost every generation had problems with future prospects. I understand that GenZ is feeling bad after looking at the 90s and 2000s and thinking that they got a raw deal with the 2020s. But these things are actually cyclical, people who grew up in the 60s, 70s and 80s had the same questioning about jobs (there was major recession in the 70s/80s, not to mention the recent "Great Recession"), nuclear war, communism, AIDS, etc. Just look at the 70s and the hippies, that was a movement against modern lifestyle, Capitalism, consumerism etc. I don't think the problem is in any way related to "late stage" capitalism. GenZ is feeling the pain of growing up, becoming adults and realizing that "life ain't easy". But what you experience today is actually better than the prospects for many generations of Americans and, even more so, Immigrants. Just hold tight, ride the wave, try to make the best plans you can and easier times will eventually come.

I wonder if population stabilisation will mean there will simply be a lot less demand for new homes. People will mostly live in what they inherit, just like they do in Europe where the same thing happened a generation earlier. With U.S. population set to grow by only 20% by the end of century (same growth as it had from 2000 till now), how many new homes will at all be needed? So i agree that they don't plan to buy real estate. They will not need to. There are as many children 0-5 years old in America today as 50-55 people. By the time the former will need to buy their first home the latter will be dying to leave it to them.

ido 3y ago
I don't know where in Europe you experienced people mostly living in the homes they inherited. I've lived in Austria and Germany since 2005 and 2013 respectively and I think I know maybe one person who lives in the apartment their grandmother left them after she passed away? That's in no way standard/expected. Also despite most/all of Europe having had low fertility rate for a long time, there's still a lot of growth in some places and decline in others (mostly people moving from rural areas into the big cities, and from the poorer countries into richer ones). So stuff isn't static even if the total population number didn't change much.
- ChuckNorris89 3y ago
  >I don't know where in Europe you experienced people mostly living in the homes they inherited. In present Austria. The one you lived in till 2013 doesn't exist anymore. Buying something decent today in one of the "major" cities is impossible even on tech wages. Just got offered 2600 Euros take home salary for a product owner position while people are asking for 700k Euros for 20 year old houses outside of the city.
  - ido 3y ago
    So you know many Austrians your age that live in inherited homes? I still visit Vienna 3x a year (my in-laws still live there), nobody I know there lives in inherited homes, they mostly rent (old contract if they're lucky, new one if not). The same is true in Berlin, those that can live in an inherited home are a tiny minority.
    - ChuckNorris89 3y ago
      >So you know many Austrians your age that live in inherited homes? Not directly, but in various forms yes, the young can only afford to buy property if helped out with funds from their wealthy parents . It's not directly inheriting, but it's still generational wealth transfer. My ex, her parents bought her an apartment in the city center when she moved to study (not Viena, another big city). When I went to a house visit to see who can afford to pay 700k on a run down old house, it was moistly Zoomers with wealthy parents there to purchase a nest egg for their kids. And the whole new vs old contract situation is again a generational wealth transfer. Those long ion the market sitting on cheap old contracts are swinging the balance the other direction for those new on the market who must pay exorbitant prices if they enter the market now. Renting and being dependent on a landlord your whole life is also not ideal, especially if you didn't luck out to get locked into an older rent controlled contract at a good price, which is putting pressure on people wanting to move to a bigger palce and start families. Move to Vienna now and check out the rent prices. >The same is true in Berlin, those that can live in an inherited home are a tiny minority. Because Berlin demographics are mostly foreigners, but Germany is a lot bigger than Belrin, and housing there, like in Austria revolves around getting funded by the mom and dad to get intot he market.
      - ido 3y ago
        I don't refute anything you say, it just sounded like OP thought something like "well in Europe they all just live in their inherited ancestral homes" where as the reality is that people mostly rent, and of those that own a lot of people bought new homes via parental support (which is still not the same as the supposedly hobbit-esque family domicile that passed from one generation to the next for the last 400 years we all supposedly live in). I'm sure there really are centuries old farmhouses in Tyrol that really work like OP mentioned, but it's not the common way for Europeans to live.
xvedejas 3y ago
Given that we're already at the limit with regards to housing supply, I'm not sure that demand-side changes will make housing affordable unless the population very actively shrinks. Even in Latvia, a country with one of the fastest declining populations in the world, housing is getting more expensive, and has been getting more expensive basically every year since 2009. Consider also how strong immigration to the US is. How is it not just cope, to have confidence that there will simply be enough housing one day due to only demographic concerns and no other action?
- imchillyb 3y ago
  > Given that we're already at the limit with regards to housing supply... That's a patently false statement. There is room for exponential growth in housing. There is money for that exponential growth. Those with the monies to do so simply aren't spending it on housing for median income families, single persons, elderly persons, homeless persons, etc. Those with the financial ability simply don't spend in that manner. There is no 'supply shortage' of housing. There are, however, discriminatory housing policies, practices, procedures, and fees.
  - anovikov 3y ago
    In a way we are. If you take the satisfaction survey among Americans, while overall life satisfaction numbers today are mediocre (about average or even slightly below average from 1980), among particular categories, satisfaction with housing situation is among the highest ever, much higher than satisfaction with income, family life, health, etc. Which means, because U.S. is a democratic country, it will be incredibly difficult to build any new housing as most voters are satisfied with theirs so for them, getting more housing is a lot less important than getting more equity on existing - and precondition for that is limiting new supply. https://news.gallup.com/poll/470888/americans-largely-satisfied-personal-life.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/470888/americans-largely-satisf... On the flip side, it probably suggests that perception of housing problem in the U.S. is mostly because of, just as with many other things, a small but very vocal minority for who it's indeed the case. It doesn't shake the economy nearly as much as it seems to be shaking public perception.
  - 3y ago
dalben 3y ago
While there is population stabilisation, there's also changing demographics. Immigration, more single people (or people waiting until later in life to move in together), and an aging population that prefers to live at home will still put pressure on the housing market even though we are over "peak child" - that was the conclusion I reached when I researched the housing market in my EU country and why I decided to buy an apartment this year, coupled with low mortgage rates.
- ChuckNorris89 3y ago
  >buy an apartment this year, coupled with low mortgage rates Where were there low mortgage rates this year?

jdmoreira 3y ago

Devastating I think. We created a world where young people feel hopeless. I don't blame them, it truly doesn't look good. I'm a millennial so I can absolutely related to the hustle mentality but it still feels very grim all around. Can't really blame younger people for giving up.

ido 3y ago
As a geriatric millennial (born '83) I find the hustle absolutely exhausting, especially when you feel like you have to run just to stay in place.
- jdmoreira 3y ago
  I'm born 84. Still haven't given up! Maybe one day I will throw in the towel (Would rather have some millions in the bank by then)
  - mdrzn 3y ago
    Born 92 and I'm already fucking tired of this.
    - znpy 3y ago
      '92 here too. glad to see i'm not the only one.
- jwestbury 3y ago
  I'm not sure if being born in '86 makes me a geriatric millennial, but I certainly find that I identify far more with the popular notion of Gen Z than the popular notion of millennials -- and I generally find the same is true amongst my fellow millennials, who have no interest in hustle culture, in dedicating their lives to their work, etc. I think, much as millennials were a decade ago, Gen Z is just a straw man to explain why the world is the way it is. It's the same thing that happens with, for instance, interest rates -- financial reporters always ascribe central interest rates to a particular phenomenon, but as soon as their preferred cause proves unrelated, they find a new certain cause.

titzer 3y ago

Ironic that nearly all the problems listed in the article are due to there being literally too much money in the system. That's what 3 rounds of massive stimulus, absurdly low interest rates, unnaturally low upper income tax rates, and persistent deficit spending will get you. One generation absolutely hammering the next with debt and no onramp to prosperity.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ChuckNorris89 3y ago
One easy fix: wealth tax && unused property/land tax
- voisin 3y ago
  Not if the tax revenue just gets handed over to BigCo via subsidies & bailouts or squandered on war.
- jdmoreira 3y ago
  The truly wealthy are impossible to tax. They will just move their wealth elsewhere or exploit all kinds of loopholes. Best you can do is tax income a lot and capital gains at 30%. Which is exactly what we do in Europe.
  - pydry 3y ago
    Good luck moving property.
  - green_man_lives 3y ago
    This argument is so lazy. Simply levy a tax on them each year that is their net worth multiplied by the risk-free rate. That takes care of most people with money in publicly traded companies. If people with more "diversified" portfolios try to move their money elsewhere, penalize them for it. Revoke their citizenship, make it harder for them to do business without a majority percentage of their wealth in the US. It's not "hard" to do, we just lack the political will.

christkv 3y ago

Is this not "The Secret" all over again with a new generation ?

jasonlotito 3y ago

> Examples of this “radical” ideology include not getting married, not having children, not buying a house or a car, and refusing to work extra hours or to hold a job at all. Refusing to work extra hours is an example of a "radical" ideology? Am I missing something? I'm seriously asking because this sounds like the whole "quiet quitting" thing that highlighted corporations expecting unpaid labor as a given. None of these sound radical. Maybe not holding a job at all, but at the same time, for a long time, that was the norm for a substantial portion of the population (and frankly, it still is).

stranded22 3y ago
I agree with you - the whole quiet quitting was a trigger phrase for me.
blitz_skull 3y ago
You're not missing anything. The entire article is a Gen-Zer complaining about the plight of Gen-Zer's with basically no substance to the article. It's written as if "young people" are the only ones affected by high inflation and expensive housing. I see this attitude from time-to-time in the younger Gen-Z's. There's this belief that somehow life was supposed to be made "easy" for them, and they are wildly offended that life isn't easy.
- ChuckNorris89 3y ago
  >I see this attitude from time-to-time in the younger Gen-Z's. There's this belief that somehow life was supposed to be made "easy" for them, and they are wildly offended that life isn't easy. To be fair, certain things have been made much easier for them. Sure, getting a house ie even more difficult for ever new generation, but, as an older millennial, I would have killed to have had access to the same mental, acne and dental treatments, that Gen-Z has access to today, and also, to the vast and easy to access community contributed information pool on the internat on topics like emigration, taxes, jobs, financial investment and career advice, dating advice, that's so easy to get nowadays versus 10-20 years ago. It would have made my teenage and adult life much, much easier on all fronts.

fnord77 3y ago

> late-stage capitalism Fortune publishing Marxist articles now?

h05sz487b 3y ago
Using that term unironically is a coping mechanism in itself. Capitalism isn‘t going away.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
crote 3y ago
No, "late-stage capitalism" is pretty mainstream these days. It is getting quite obvious that the current way we are handling the economy isn't working anymore. No need to go full-blown communism, but we do need to do something different pretty soon.
- vxNsr 3y ago
  If that something is more regulation, more wealth redistribution, more finger pointing… it’s not gonna have the effect you expect. Delusional is absolutely the correct term for how most gen-z’s think.

alexb_ 3y ago

> New and often controversial lifestyles are proliferating on platforms like TikTok, such as “bimbo culture” and “stay-at-home girlfriends.” The hashtag “#Bimbofication” has garnered over 275 million views on TikTok. Meanwhile “sugar daddy dating” reportedly spiked 74% on the platform SeekingArrangement during the pandemic. Is the article seriously, unironically talking about view counts on fetish hashtags as a sort of evidence point?

thefz 3y ago
I am also very tired with parsing of social media trends to prove a point. These are a subset of a subset of the population and don't mean much when we account for curious viewers, casual viewers, ironic viewers. Also, the subset of the population perusing social media is low. Even lower when we divide this subset by social media platform. The trends and fleeting passions of the ultra young do not reflect 100% of the population at all.
phil917 3y ago
While I agree it's not some irrefutable data point, I think it does at least give some indication as to the current zeitgeist.
vxNsr 3y ago
That fact that it un-ironically uses the term “late stage capitalism” should tell you all you need to know about the author, article and publication.
- UtopiaPunk 3y ago
  What does it tell you?
UtopiaPunk 3y ago
I think this small section of the article is what resonated with me the least, but then they could use the "delusional" headline. Almost everything else in the article either matches my own outlook or at least makes a lot of sense to me. And I'm not gen Z, I'm just a frustrated guy in my 30s.

jacknews 3y ago

I can assure you it's not only gen-Z 'late-stage' capitalism is just not working for a large section of society between the crapification of everything, 'optimization' of working practices, and hunger-games/got-talent tournaments even for that privilege, monopolies sprouting up everywhere, casino stock-markets, arbitrary government rules/enforcement, bylaws, and especially 'private law' (landlord rules, credit requirements, company policies/rules, etc, etc), it's becoming increasingly intolerable to live in the system as it stands

alecst 3y ago

> Mental well-being, personal growth, and fulfillment are being reprioritized ahead of financial gain: 73% of Gen Z would rather have a better quality of life than extra money in the bank, and 66% are only interested in finances as a way to support their other interests in life. What's wrong with the other 27%/34%?

Mordisquitos 3y ago
Indeed. I found it surreal that the article implies that it is somehow irrational or shocking to prefer quality of life over money, or to see financial gain as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. The quoted 73%/66% of Gen Z who display these preferences seems low to me! However, you know what's even more ridiculous about this paragraph? The linked source[0] actually compares Gen Z's preferences with those of the general population... and guess what? For preferring quality of life over money it is 73% Gen Z vs 70% general population, and for valuing finances just as a way to support other interests in life it is 66% Gen Z vs 61% general population! Hardly a monumental shift in attitudes, maybe even within the margin of error. It looks like this article is a delusional attempt by the author to cope with the fact that people behave as mortal animals with personal lives and individual interests and desires, rather than behaving as an immortal financial maximiser wrapped in a meat sack. [0] (PDF, page 21/27) https://www.intuit.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Intuit-Prosperity-Index-Report_US_Jan-2023.pdf https://www.intuit.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Intui...

ericd 3y ago

This seems like low quality blogspam composed of a few random anecdotes used to generalize across an entire generation. At the bottom, there’s a big disclaimer about how posts on Fortune don’t reflect the views of Fortune. Guessing this is just some part of their unmoderated/unedited blogging platform.

eadmund 3y ago

> Gen Z’s economic outlook is bleak That really depends on what one means by ‘outlook.’ If one means their perception of the present and future, then yeah, it’s bleak. But if one means their actual present and likely future, then my understanding is that Gen Z are wealthier than the Millennials were at their age; the Millennials in turn are wealthier than Gen X were at their age; Gen X are wealthier than the Baby Boomers were at their age; and of course the Baby Boomers are wealthier than preceding generations. Compounding interest really is a miracle, and it’s not just a financial one.

crote 3y ago
This is no longer true. Gen Z and late-stage Millenials are the first generation since WWII who are worse off than their parents. Education and housing have become completely unaffordable to them, and wages have been stagnant for decades. Compounding interest doesn't mean crap when you have no wealth to receive interest from in the first place.
eliasmacpherson 3y ago
What formed your understanding? My understanding is that the opposite is true, I've read numerous articles to that effect, here's but one example: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charting-the-growing-generational-wealth-gap/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charting-the-growing-genera... One quote: "But the difference is as much in assets as it is in opportunity. In 1989, Baby Boomers and Generation X under 40 accounted for 13% of household wealth, compared to just 5.9% for Millennials and Generation Z under 40 in 2020."
- MattPalmer1086 3y ago
  If you take Gen X to range from 1965 to 1980, everyone in Gen X would be under 40 in 1989. The oldest would be only 24, and most of them would still be children. So unsurprising they don't account for much household wealth in that time!
  - eliasmacpherson 3y ago

kenada 3y ago

> The traditional markers of financial success—from owning a home to snagging that corner office at work—are becoming not only less attainable but also less valuable for Gen Zers. To be fair, those corner offices might not even exist anymore depending on the employer. From when I started working part-time in college in the early ’00s through today, those sorts of things have disappeared. I remember how the programmers where I first worked in an entry-level position out of college had their own offices. I’m a staff engineer now, and I don’t even have my own desk (because it’s an open office with hoteling). I hate it.

damnesian 3y ago

>Some young people have adopted a sort of financial nihilism as a response to deteriorating economic conditions, eschewing traditional capitalist norms for ones that are decidedly more self-serving and self-indulgent. Not at all unexpected reaction to, if you look at it closely, an incredibly depressing present and future- IF the status quo persists. This level of disaffection is the perfect fuel for a revolution, if young adults choose to make it so. But I don't know how reliable the Gen Z voting tsunami truly is if people escape too far down their fantasy holes.

dataworm 3y ago
Voting is not revolution and not enough to fix this broken system.

KaiserPro 3y ago

> only 41% expect to own a home one day. This may be because they’re young, and such financial goals seem too far away to properly comprehend I'm not GenZ, but I can see their point here. Average house prices in and around lover are 520k, the avergae wage for someone in london is <40k. its totally unobtanium

helij 3y ago
30% of 25-year olds owned their home in 2022.[0] [0]https://www.redfin.com/news/gen-z-millennial-homeownership-rate-home-purchases/ https://www.redfin.com/news/gen-z-millennial-homeownership-r...
- KaiserPro 3y ago
  So less than 41% then...
  - helij 3y ago
    Yes, less than 41% but they are under 25. It's reasonable to believe that many more from their generation will own a place where they live in the next 15 years.

krapp 3y ago

And Timothy Leary said "turn on, tune in, drop out" back in the 1960s. None of the social phenomena presented here are new, all this has happened before. And honestly, placing more emphasis on personal well-being and self-interest and less on being a slave to the grind is a good thing. To hell with the Protestant work ethic.

xk_id 3y ago

Really upsetting to see people dismissing or downplaying this article. Not only I resonate personally with every sentence in it, but I also recognise it almost universally among my peers. The radical rejection of any hope in traditional strategies for personal finance (like the belief that learning economically relevant skills is worth it in the long term) is for me the tangible reality and while I don’t see a valid alternative to it, I’m nevertheless concerned about its long term implications. One thing I feel the article has omitted is how the surging popularity of crypto speculation and chatGPT are also symptomatic: they appeal to people lacking technical abilities, who hope that by pulling the gambling lever on a science-fiction blackbox, fortune will provide them with the breakthrough worthy of a genius.

ryandrake 3y ago
It's getting to the point where every realistic path to success is rooted in gambling/chance. The 1950s "risk free, steady job" at the mill has gone away and in its place we have The Gig Economy where you enter the Thunderdome with everyone else and your success is determined by hustle or chance that you get enough gigs. Interest from saving money in a bank or with a CD has gone away, and instead you're expected to put your money on the stock market roulette wheel and pray. Cheap education and "white collar jobs for just graduating" are gone, now you're expected to make a huge, multi-hundred-thousand dollar financial bet on a particular degree at the age of 18 and hope against hope it translates into a middle class future. No surprise to me that these generations feel it's hopeless and disenfranchised. If we survive, future generations are going to write about the ills of structuring a society so centered around luck and random chance.
- ericd 3y ago
  >It's getting to the point where every realistic path to success is rooted in gambling/chance. I don't see how that's true? If you're well educated in something useful and you're conscientious, there are a lot of corporate jobs that pay more than enough to sock away a good amount of savings, especially if you're willing to stay frugal. And if you're not particularly well educated in the college sense, but are willing to work hard, good tradespeople are in incredibly high demand. But certainly, some sectors have become more difficult to make your way in. In terms of investing/gambling, the Buffett method of buying solid companies that make things that people need at a reasonable price is still much more reliable than hopping on the latest hype train. The hordes of WSB/GME bagholders would have been much better off just buying into Berkshire and then doing something more productive with their time. But I guess that's less fun than chanting "apes together strong" and imagining that you're sticking it to the hedge funds. Anyway, I hope we can channel some of this disaffection and anger into getting a carbon tax passed, with a rebate and border adjustment. In addition to being the best hope I see against climate change, it will likely make local manufacturing more competitive, and therefore give people who want to do those kinds of jobs more leverage to demand better pay. And since the rich are responsible for much more carbon generation than the poor, an equal rebate should leave the poor ahead even despite the inflation it would cause, and help reduce wealth inequality.

glimshe 3y ago

Almost every generation had problems with future prospects. I understand that GenZ is feeling bad after looking at the 90s and 2000s and thinking that they got a raw deal with the 2020s. But these things are actually cyclical, people who grew up in the 60s, 70s and 80s had the same questioning about jobs (there was major recession in the 70s/80s, not to mention the recent "Great Recession"), nuclear war, communism, AIDS, etc. Just look at the 70s and the hippies, that was a movement against modern lifestyle, Capitalism, consumerism etc. I don't think the problem is in any way related to "late stage" capitalism. GenZ is feeling the pain of growing up, becoming adults and realizing that "life ain't easy". But what you experience today is actually better than the prospects for many generations of Americans and, even more so, Immigrants. Just hold tight, ride the wave, try to make the best plans you can and easier times will eventually come.