Replying separately from my other reply, because I think this is a totally different issue and actually gets to the core of the issue in the article. > Rent ha

Replying separately from my other reply, because I think this is a totally different issue and actually gets to the core of the issue in the article. > Rent has increased ... due to collusion among landlords, among other things. > ... is such a big part of monthly expenses that it doesn’t even matter whether you have subscriptions or not. ... These are changes caused by large-scale political decisions, not personal moral failings of vast numbers of consumers. To me, both these statements are indicative of passivity and lack of agency about the situation that exemplifies the Gen Z mindset towards money. The first attempts to blame someone or something else for the high rents, which doesn't achieve anything apart from increasing the feeling that life is unfair. This mindset doesn't allow a way to break out, because it relinquishes agency over the situation to someone else. The second has so much to unpack - it's pointless even trying to spend less; it's the government's fault; lots of others are in the same boat; trying to help someone to save is pointing out their personal moral failings. But none of these things are actually true. It's not a personal moral failing to be short of money. Arguably, there'd be a case to be made if someone was gambling thousands of dollars away every month while their kids starved. If you're just working a job, struggling to make ends meet and having to live pay cheque to pay cheque, that's not a moral failing, that's making the best of a bad situation. People in that situation usually have already cut out all unnecessary spending, because they've often had to make the choice between things they actually need and had to do without something they actually need. There are still ways out in that situation, and sadly the easiest to say and the hardest to actually do is just to leave the situation, move somewhere cheaper to live and try to start again. That isn't what the article is about though, it's about how Gen Z is nihilistic towards money. How does someone who does have a decent income, but chooses to spend it on a fun lifestyle, on experiences, etc. respond to the statement "if you make your life a little less pleasant now by giving up X, then you can save that money and make your future life better"? I can totally understand why people don't want to give up X - they obviously want to keep life with its current level of pleasantness, so then it comes down to priorities - what is really more important to an individual? For example, a cup of coffee every day for a year, or no cup of coffee each day and having a a month's rent in savings at the end of the year so e.g. a random car breakdown doesn't stop you paying rent? Maybe after a month of skipping the coffee and seeing that it wasn't that hard after all and seeing the difference in the bank, they might then consider not having lunch out every day, instead taking in sandwiches 4 days a week. Maybe they might consider whether they really need Amazon Prime instead of just waiting 3 days and using the free shipping. But I think most of them won't, and that's the point of the article. Most Gen-Z'ers don't prioritise the savings and the future reward, because they want the short term experiences and happiness. More than that, their peers all agree that it's not their fault, they're powerless to do anything about the situation, they could never hope to ever save up the deposit for a house, and so they might as well not even try. It's this mindset that's depriving them of their own agency, not the government, not previous generations, not anyone else.