Keyno said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

Three issues I see

1.). Unrealistic expectations- they assume they will make lots of money and live a great life starting out and don't realize that a lot of people made sacrifices to get where they have a "good life" and also social media lies.


2.) easiness of fast food/food delivery. Many people won't cook or claim they "don't have time". What they spend on one delivered meal they could make three to four dinners.

3.) body positivity movement. Gross. It cuts down on dating pool.


All these things can be overcome but #2 I continue to see being a huge issue. It's never been easier to eat healthier and cheaply. It's pretty freaking great if you use discipline.

---

Everything is overpriced. Our government imports foreigners to compete for college spots and our government imports foreigners to compete for jobs. Our government has let in (and now is failing to deport) 50 million foreigners which drives up the costs of everything. Our government force isolated everyone for a few years. Our government allowed OnlyFans, which opened up the door for young, naive women to just become sex workers from their bedroom. There are many other reasons but that's good for now.

Gen Z cannot afford anything you could afford. Gen Z does not have the job prospects you had. Gen Z does not have the wife prospects you had. It is a sad situation for them, and I do not fault them for being unmotivated given these facts, but they will be the generation that gets this country straight again

---

And yet Gen Z votes for the Democrats enacting these policies at a higher percentage than any other generation.

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

The "olds" could buy a house on the cheap and raise 5 kids on a single income.

---

FWIW, this changed dramatically in the 70s, and by the 80s, assuming it was ever the norm.
The idea of single-worker households throughout working life is mostly a myth. Women have contributed and supplemented household income, even through small jobs and part-time work, for decades.

---

Wife was stay at home mom for 16-years (late 90's - 2010's). Knew plenty of single income homes during that time. Know many now. It's not a myth unless you want it to be.

Muktheduck said:

---

EclipseAg said:

---

BBRex said:

---

Quote:

---

Gen Z is not growing up in the same world or even universe that you did

---

True, but part of that is the relative wealth you grew up with and became accustomed to.

---

We often overlook this fact but it is a reality. Many kids today grow up around significantly more affluence than people in the '70s, '80s and '90s did.

As a kid, I lived in a solid middle class neighborhood. Everyone around me was the same socioeconomically. There were no poor kids; there were no rich kids. No one traveled extensively. No one had a big house.

In high school, everyone worked. Everyone.

Doing better than my parents was easy because outside of an 1,600-square-foot, three-bedroom home and a couple of cars, they had very little.

---

This post is very telling lol. You have no idea what you're talking about and you're basing your opinions of Gen Z based off of social media posts

The "relative wealth" argument is just false. Young adults today have far, far less buying power than their parents did. Most of them don't travel either. Owning a 1600ft, 3 bedroom house and two cars is an absolute pipe dream for all but the wealthiest. That is no longer a middle class living standard. You talking about how little your parents had when they lived in that situation is frankly hilarious, I hate talking about priveledge because it's become a racist canard but you were swimming in it and had no idea.

Most of them would also love to work in high school. Some do, but finding entry level jobs is a hell of a lot harder now. We have imported tens of millions of low skill workers since their parents were their age. Add in the fact that these jobs are starting to become automated and it's again telling that the olds think it's just a matter of getting up off the couch and finding a job.

---

My company has always tried to hire college students, but really since 2020 finding good ones is almost impossible, and the reasons are always the same. Used to always be tons of Aggies who were good candidates; now, not so much.

-Want starting pay far beyond what they're worth, for part time jobs.
-Their social media history.
-Previous employment history is bad.
-Come to the interview looking like a bum.
-Can barely fill out the online application, often it is filled with numerous spelling errors. The best/worst are the ones who use emojis.

Where do we find good ones? Mostly from kids who grew up in small towns or rural areas. They always seem to know the value of work. Some have even ended up becoming full time for a few years after graduation to gain experience before moving on.

Quote:

---

• Come to the interview looking like a bum.
• Can barely fill out the online application, often it is filled with numerous spelling errors. The best/worst are the ones who use emojis.

---

Therein lies a conundrum for me. So tech savvy but can't be bothered to google for job interview and resume writing tips? There are only a million such videos and streams out there if one looks. A resource I wish I had had back in the late 70s when I was graduating. The A&M placement office provided pretty good assistance but had to ask for it. My first job after I graduated was courtesy of the placement office.

agracer said:

---

Keyno said:

---

tysker said:

---

Keyno said:

---

tysker said:

---

agracer said:

---

Keyno said:

---

I know this board skews "older" so I will try to be polite and respectful.

Gen Z is not growing up in the same world you grew up in. It's barely the same universe.

Everything is overpriced. Our government imports foreigners to compete for college spots and our government imports foreigners to compete for jobs. Our government has let in (and now is failing to deport) 50 million foreigners which drives up the costs of everything. Our government force isolated everyone for a few years. Our government allowed OnlyFans, which opened up the door for young, naive women to just become sex workers from their bedroom. There are many other reasons but that's good for now.

Gen Z cannot afford anything you could afford. Gen Z does not have the job prospects you had. Gen Z does not have the wife prospects you had. It is a sad situation for them, and I do not fault them for being unmotivated given these facts, but they will be the generation that gets this country straight again

---

The 1970's and 12%+ interest rates called and would like a word. Also, gas lines are next in line.

---

Rates and prices are inversely related.
One reason houses are relatively expensive is a decade-plus of government-sponsored and Fed-induced near-0 % interest rates (ZIRP). For most people, their largest investment is their home, and when the country faced widespread defaults and a housing depression, the government stepped in to bail out banks and homeowners.

As an outcome of these bailouts (or "stabilization"), Boomers and GenX homeowners benefited the most from a generational perspective. Then and now.

Since the GFC, home prices have steadily increased, as expected with a generation (GFC + covid) of artificially low rates. The trade-off has been higher home prices and lower affordability for the subsequent generations. We were warning about these issues on this board all the way back during the TARP and QE days.

---

All of this is just getting away from the point. The "olds" could buy a house on the cheap and raise 5 kids on a single income. Yes, yes, I know they worked very hard.

Gen Z cannot do this.

---

No its the same point. Home prices have increased for a variety of reasons, the most important of which was long-term low interest rates

But also, the median house size in 1984 was ~1700 sq ft with small kitchens and fewer bedrooms. Also, home occupancy was higher at around 2.8-3.0 persons per household. In the 2020s, the median house size is around 2,300 sq ft, with an occupancy rate of less than 2.5 people per home (more single-person and fewer children). Prices on a per-sq-ft, per-occupancy basis have increased, but not as much as some think.

Not only have homes gotten larger with fewer people occupying them, but new builds are also much higher in quality and efficiency than they were in the 80s. How many new home buyers would want to live in the same home I lived in during the 80s, with the same HVAC, same hot water tank, same carpet and linoleum in the kitchen, no dedicated family room, etc?

---

OK now do the cost of that home at the time compared to the average salary. I have the stats if you don't know them

---

I ran the numbers and posted them on the last "GEN Z has it harder than any generation" thread. It's increased from an average of about 35% of average salary to about 40%. NO doubt the cost has gone up, but so have ways to spend money (streaming, coffee, vacations, new expensive cars, subscriptions, food dlivery, etc.)

---

Yeah literally everything is more expensive. Not to mention the stagnated wages, the government importing (and now NOT deporting) foreigners, the government force isolating you for a few years (Gen Z- they were kids), the government doing forever war. It's not a surprise to me that Gen Z is demotivated (no, I don't mean your son calm down). But they will be the generation that sets this country straight

Aggie93 speaking Truth…!

Keyno said:

---

tysker said:

---

Keyno said:

---

tysker said:

---

Keyno said:

---

tysker said:

---

agracer said:

---

Keyno said:

---

I know this board skews "older" so I will try to be polite and respectful.

Gen Z is not growing up in the same world you grew up in. It's barely the same universe.

Everything is overpriced. Our government imports foreigners to compete for college spots and our government imports foreigners to compete for jobs. Our government has let in (and now is failing to deport) 50 million foreigners which drives up the costs of everything. Our government force isolated everyone for a few years. Our government allowed OnlyFans, which opened up the door for young, naive women to just become sex workers from their bedroom. There are many other reasons but that's good for now.

Gen Z cannot afford anything you could afford. Gen Z does not have the job prospects you had. Gen Z does not have the wife prospects you had. It is a sad situation for them, and I do not fault them for being unmotivated given these facts, but they will be the generation that gets this country straight again

---

The 1970's and 12%+ interest rates called and would like a word. Also, gas lines are next in line.

---

Rates and prices are inversely related.
One reason houses are relatively expensive is a decade-plus of government-sponsored and Fed-induced near-0 % interest rates (ZIRP). For most people, their largest investment is their home, and when the country faced widespread defaults and a housing depression, the government stepped in to bail out banks and homeowners.

As an outcome of these bailouts (or "stabilization"), Boomers and GenX homeowners benefited the most from a generational perspective. Then and now.

Since the GFC, home prices have steadily increased, as expected with a generation (GFC + covid) of artificially low rates. The trade-off has been higher home prices and lower affordability for the subsequent generations. We were warning about these issues on this board all the way back during the TARP and QE days.

---

All of this is just getting away from the point. The "olds" could buy a house on the cheap and raise 5 kids on a single income. Yes, yes, I know they worked very hard.

Gen Z cannot do this.

---

No its the same point. Home prices have increased for a variety of reasons, the most important of which was long-term low interest rates

But also, the median house size in 1984 was ~1700 sq ft with small kitchens and fewer bedrooms. Also, home occupancy was higher at around 2.8-3.0 persons per household. In the 2020s, the median house size is around 2,300 sq ft, with an occupancy rate of less than 2.5 people per home (more single-person and fewer children). Prices on a per-sq-ft, per-occupancy basis have increased, but not as much as some think.

Not only have homes gotten larger with fewer people occupying them, but new builds are also much higher in quality and efficiency than they were in the 80s. How many new home buyers would want to live in the same home I lived in during the 80s, with the same HVAC, same hot water tank, same carpet and linoleum in the kitchen, no dedicated family room, etc?

---

OK now do the cost of that home at the time compared to the average salary. I have the stats if you don't know them

---

Sure, but don't use average salary, use average compensation. This will address issues for homeowners who have no salary or wages, such as retirees. As many as 30-40% of current homes are held by people who are likely retired or no longer working, primarily those aged 65+.

I will argue that homes, on a per-sq-ft basis, increased in price, but part of the affordability gap is offset by higher combined earnings.

---

No I am not doing any of that.

1984: Median home price is 80K. Median salary is 25K (home price is 3.5 years income)

2026: Median home price is 420K. Median salary is 80K (home price is 6 years income).

---

Do you know a huge reason home prices were lower? Lack of demand because interest rates averaged almost 14% in 1984 and the average mortgage required a 15-20% down payment. There was none of the low down payment programs available.

TarponChaser said:

---

Keyno said:

---

tysker said:

---

Keyno said:

---

tysker said:

---

Keyno said:

---

tysker said:

---

agracer said:

---

Keyno said:

---

I know this board skews "older" so I will try to be polite and respectful.

Gen Z is not growing up in the same world you grew up in. It's barely the same universe.

Everything is overpriced. Our government imports foreigners to compete for college spots and our government imports foreigners to compete for jobs. Our government has let in (and now is failing to deport) 50 million foreigners which drives up the costs of everything. Our government force isolated everyone for a few years. Our government allowed OnlyFans, which opened up the door for young, naive women to just become sex workers from their bedroom. There are many other reasons but that's good for now.

Gen Z cannot afford anything you could afford. Gen Z does not have the job prospects you had. Gen Z does not have the wife prospects you had. It is a sad situation for them, and I do not fault them for being unmotivated given these facts, but they will be the generation that gets this country straight again

---

The 1970's and 12%+ interest rates called and would like a word. Also, gas lines are next in line.

---

Rates and prices are inversely related.
One reason houses are relatively expensive is a decade-plus of government-sponsored and Fed-induced near-0 % interest rates (ZIRP). For most people, their largest investment is their home, and when the country faced widespread defaults and a housing depression, the government stepped in to bail out banks and homeowners.

As an outcome of these bailouts (or "stabilization"), Boomers and GenX homeowners benefited the most from a generational perspective. Then and now.

Since the GFC, home prices have steadily increased, as expected with a generation (GFC + covid) of artificially low rates. The trade-off has been higher home prices and lower affordability for the subsequent generations. We were warning about these issues on this board all the way back during the TARP and QE days.

---

All of this is just getting away from the point. The "olds" could buy a house on the cheap and raise 5 kids on a single income. Yes, yes, I know they worked very hard.

Gen Z cannot do this.

---

No its the same point. Home prices have increased for a variety of reasons, the most important of which was long-term low interest rates

But also, the median house size in 1984 was ~1700 sq ft with small kitchens and fewer bedrooms. Also, home occupancy was higher at around 2.8-3.0 persons per household. In the 2020s, the median house size is around 2,300 sq ft, with an occupancy rate of less than 2.5 people per home (more single-person and fewer children). Prices on a per-sq-ft, per-occupancy basis have increased, but not as much as some think.

Not only have homes gotten larger with fewer people occupying them, but new builds are also much higher in quality and efficiency than they were in the 80s. How many new home buyers would want to live in the same home I lived in during the 80s, with the same HVAC, same hot water tank, same carpet and linoleum in the kitchen, no dedicated family room, etc?

---

OK now do the cost of that home at the time compared to the average salary. I have the stats if you don't know them

---

Sure, but don't use average salary, use average compensation. This will address issues for homeowners who have no salary or wages, such as retirees. As many as 30-40% of current homes are held by people who are likely retired or no longer working, primarily those aged 65+.

I will argue that homes, on a per-sq-ft basis, increased in price, but part of the affordability gap is offset by higher combined earnings.

---

No I am not doing any of that.

1984: Median home price is 80K. Median salary is 25K (home price is 3.5 years income)

2026: Median home price is 420K. Median salary is 80K (home price is 6 years income).

---

Do you know a huge reason home prices were lower? Lack of demand because interest rates averaged almost 14% in 1984 and the average mortgage required a 15-20% down payment. There was none of the low down payment programs available.

---

Good points. Also we didn't have infinity foreigners back then. We also didn't have infinity debt. But I digress- this thread is not about the massive differences in home prices compared to wages over the decades

Keyno said:

---

tysker said:

---

Keyno said:

---

tysker said:

---

Keyno said:

---

tysker said:

---

agracer said:

---

Keyno said:

---

I know this board skews "older" so I will try to be polite and respectful.

Gen Z is not growing up in the same world you grew up in. It's barely the same universe.

Everything is overpriced. Our government imports foreigners to compete for college spots and our government imports foreigners to compete for jobs. Our government has let in (and now is failing to deport) 50 million foreigners which drives up the costs of everything. Our government force isolated everyone for a few years. Our government allowed OnlyFans, which opened up the door for young, naive women to just become sex workers from their bedroom. There are many other reasons but that's good for now.

Gen Z cannot afford anything you could afford. Gen Z does not have the job prospects you had. Gen Z does not have the wife prospects you had. It is a sad situation for them, and I do not fault them for being unmotivated given these facts, but they will be the generation that gets this country straight again

---

The 1970's and 12%+ interest rates called and would like a word. Also, gas lines are next in line.

---

Rates and prices are inversely related.
One reason houses are relatively expensive is a decade-plus of government-sponsored and Fed-induced near-0 % interest rates (ZIRP). For most people, their largest investment is their home, and when the country faced widespread defaults and a housing depression, the government stepped in to bail out banks and homeowners.

As an outcome of these bailouts (or "stabilization"), Boomers and GenX homeowners benefited the most from a generational perspective. Then and now.

Since the GFC, home prices have steadily increased, as expected with a generation (GFC + covid) of artificially low rates. The trade-off has been higher home prices and lower affordability for the subsequent generations. We were warning about these issues on this board all the way back during the TARP and QE days.

---

All of this is just getting away from the point. The "olds" could buy a house on the cheap and raise 5 kids on a single income. Yes, yes, I know they worked very hard.

Gen Z cannot do this.

---

No its the same point. Home prices have increased for a variety of reasons, the most important of which was long-term low interest rates

But also, the median house size in 1984 was ~1700 sq ft with small kitchens and fewer bedrooms. Also, home occupancy was higher at around 2.8-3.0 persons per household. In the 2020s, the median house size is around 2,300 sq ft, with an occupancy rate of less than 2.5 people per home (more single-person and fewer children). Prices on a per-sq-ft, per-occupancy basis have increased, but not as much as some think.

Not only have homes gotten larger with fewer people occupying them, but new builds are also much higher in quality and efficiency than they were in the 80s. How many new home buyers would want to live in the same home I lived in during the 80s, with the same HVAC, same hot water tank, same carpet and linoleum in the kitchen, no dedicated family room, etc?

---

OK now do the cost of that home at the time compared to the average salary. I have the stats if you don't know them

---

Sure, but don't use average salary, use average compensation. This will address issues for homeowners who have no salary or wages, such as retirees. As many as 30-40% of current homes are held by people who are likely retired or no longer working, primarily those aged 65+.

I will argue that homes, on a per-sq-ft basis, increased in price, but part of the affordability gap is offset by higher combined earnings.

---

No I am not doing any of that.

1984: Median home price is 80K. Median salary is 25K (home price is 3.5 years income)

2026: Median home price is 420K. Median salary is 80K (home price is 6 years income).

---

Cool. And mortgage rates were 13%+ in 1984 and around 6% today.Stop worrying about the notional amount and consider the monthly payment:

At ~13%, the monthly payment for your $80k home in 1984 was about $750 per month, which represents about 36% of your monthly take-home pay.

At ~6% , the monthly payment for your $420k home in 2025 was about $2150 per month, which represents about 33% of your monthly take-home pay.

Tell me which is better? Plus, lending standards are looser and down payments are smaller today than they were in 1984.

Muktheduck said:

---

EclipseAg said:

---

BBRex said:

---

Quote:

---

Gen Z is not growing up in the same world or even universe that you did

---

True, but part of that is the relative wealth you grew up with and became accustomed to.

---

We often overlook this fact but it is a reality. Many kids today grow up around significantly more affluence than people in the '70s, '80s and '90s did.

As a kid, I lived in a solid middle class neighborhood. Everyone around me was the same socioeconomically. There were no poor kids; there were no rich kids. No one traveled extensively. No one had a big house.

In high school, everyone worked. Everyone.

Doing better than my parents was easy because outside of an 1,600-square-foot, three-bedroom home and a couple of cars, they had very little.

---

This post is very telling lol. You have no idea what you're talking about and you're basing your opinions of Gen Z based off of social media posts

The "relative wealth" argument is just false. Young adults today have far, far less buying power than their parents did. Most of them don't travel either. Owning a 1600ft, 3 bedroom house and two cars is an absolute pipe dream for all but the wealthiest. That is no longer a middle class living standard. You talking about how little your parents had when they lived in that situation is frankly hilarious, I hate talking about priveledge because it's become a racist canard but you were swimming in it and had no idea.

Most of them would also love to work in high school. Some do, but finding entry level jobs is a hell of a lot harder now. We have imported tens of millions of low skill workers since their parents were their age. Add in the fact that these jobs are starting to become automated and it's again telling that the olds think it's just a matter of getting up off the couch and finding a job.

---

Your anti-boomer rage is causing you to miss the point. I'm actually on your side. Kind of.

Many Gen Z'ers grew up surrounded by far more affluence than their parents did, because of two-income families, higher wages for white collar professionals, easier credit, etc., etc.

The son or daughter of a typical TexAgs poster likely enjoys a far more affluent lifestyle than the posters themselves did, growing up back in the day.

Yes, Gen Z's buying power is reduced because of a lot of factors. It's unfortunate. And it's something we should be working on, primarily by eliminating immigration, remigrating millions and reducing demand for jobs and houses.

That doesn't change the fact that the gap Gen Z faces is way more noticeable for them because their standard of living is a five-bedroom house with a pool.

All I had to do was buy a 2,000-square-foot house to "live better" than my folks, who grew up in Depression-era households and struggled to make it to the middle class.

agracer said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

The "olds" could buy a house on the cheap and raise 5 kids on a single income.

---

FWIW, this changed dramatically in the 70s, and by the 80s, assuming it was ever the norm.
The idea of single-worker households throughout working life is mostly a myth. Women have contributed and supplemented household income, even through small jobs and part-time work, for decades.

---

Wife was stay at home mom for 16-years (late 90's - 2010's). Knew plenty of single income homes during that time. Know many now. It's not a myth unless you want it to be.

---

That's your experience. My guess is you're a high-income earner with an educated spouse. But over the last several decades, the majority of families have had some form of dual income (part-time work, supplementary income) at some point in their relationship.

tysker said:

---

agracer said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

The "olds" could buy a house on the cheap and raise 5 kids on a single income.

---

FWIW, this changed dramatically in the 70s, and by the 80s, assuming it was ever the norm.
The idea of single-worker households throughout working life is mostly a myth. Women have contributed and supplemented household income, even through small jobs and part-time work, for decades.

---

Wife was stay at home mom for 16-years (late 90's - 2010's). Knew plenty of single income homes during that time. Know many now. It's not a myth unless you want it to be.

---

That's your experience. My guess is you're a high-income earner with an educated spouse. But over the last several decades, the majority of families have had some form of dual income (part-time work, supplementary income) at some point in their relationship.

---

Yeah alot of this thread is just posters humble bragging that they made it or their kids are doing good. It's frustrating to sift through

People on the thread are pointing out painting a generation with this broad brush is just wrong.

Parenting failure

tysker said:

---

agracer said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

The "olds" could buy a house on the cheap and raise 5 kids on a single income.

---

FWIW, this changed dramatically in the 70s, and by the 80s, assuming it was ever the norm.
The idea of single-worker households throughout working life is mostly a myth. Women have contributed and supplemented household income, even through small jobs and part-time work, for decades.

---

Wife was stay at home mom for 16-years (late 90's - 2010's). Knew plenty of single income homes during that time. Know many now. It's not a myth unless you want it to be.

---

That's your experience. My guess is you're a high-income earner with an educated spouse. But over the last several decades, the majority of families have had some form of dual income (part-time work, supplementary income) at some point in their relationship.

---

A big part of "needing" two incomes is the creep in what we think we "need." My parents live in a bigger house than their parents did. And mine is bigger than theirs. Cars, electronics, streaming subscriptions, running the AC/heater at whatever temperature you want, eating out all the time. We've raised the standard of living and gone wild with consumerism and live lifes far more luxurious and expensive than we need to.

Ogre09 said:

---

Parenting failure

---

That argument does not hold water. Its a society failure

Keyno said:

---

tysker said:

---

agracer said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

The "olds" could buy a house on the cheap and raise 5 kids on a single income.

---

FWIW, this changed dramatically in the 70s, and by the 80s, assuming it was ever the norm.
The idea of single-worker households throughout working life is mostly a myth. Women have contributed and supplemented household income, even through small jobs and part-time work, for decades.

---

Wife was stay at home mom for 16-years (late 90's - 2010's). Knew plenty of single income homes during that time. Know many now. It's not a myth unless you want it to be.

---

That's your experience. My guess is you're a high-income earner with an educated spouse. But over the last several decades, the majority of families have had some form of dual income (part-time work, supplementary income) at some point in their relationship.

---

Yeah alot of this thread is just posters humble bragging that they made it or their kids are doing good. It's frustrating to sift through

---

Well you keep saying it's impossible for GenZ to succeed and people keep posting real world stories of GenZ succeeding.

Sorry to break up your doom and gloom party but we still live in the greatest country in the world where it's possible for anyone to make a better life for themselves than what their parents had. Is it harder for some? Of course. That's how life works.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Keyno said:

---

tysker said:

---

agracer said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

The "olds" could buy a house on the cheap and raise 5 kids on a single income.

---

FWIW, this changed dramatically in the 70s, and by the 80s, assuming it was ever the norm.
The idea of single-worker households throughout working life is mostly a myth. Women have contributed and supplemented household income, even through small jobs and part-time work, for decades.

---

Wife was stay at home mom for 16-years (late 90's - 2010's). Knew plenty of single income homes during that time. Know many now. It's not a myth unless you want it to be.

---

That's your experience. My guess is you're a high-income earner with an educated spouse. But over the last several decades, the majority of families have had some form of dual income (part-time work, supplementary income) at some point in their relationship.

---

Yeah alot of this thread is just posters humble bragging that they made it or their kids are doing good. It's frustrating to sift through

---

Well you keep saying it's impossible for GenZ to succeed and people keep posting real world stories of GenZ succeeding.

Sorry to break up your doom and gloom party but we still live in the greatest country in the world where it's possible for anyone to make a better life for themselves than what their parents had. Is it harder for some? Of course. That's how life works.

---

I literally never said its impossible for Gen Z to succeed. What are you talking about? Quote me saying that. This is getting ridiculous

Keyno said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Keyno said:

---

tysker said:

---

agracer said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

The "olds" could buy a house on the cheap and raise 5 kids on a single income.

---

FWIW, this changed dramatically in the 70s, and by the 80s, assuming it was ever the norm.
The idea of single-worker households throughout working life is mostly a myth. Women have contributed and supplemented household income, even through small jobs and part-time work, for decades.

---

Wife was stay at home mom for 16-years (late 90's - 2010's). Knew plenty of single income homes during that time. Know many now. It's not a myth unless you want it to be.

---

That's your experience. My guess is you're a high-income earner with an educated spouse. But over the last several decades, the majority of families have had some form of dual income (part-time work, supplementary income) at some point in their relationship.

---

Yeah alot of this thread is just posters humble bragging that they made it or their kids are doing good. It's frustrating to sift through

---

Well you keep saying it's impossible for GenZ to succeed and people keep posting real world stories of GenZ succeeding.

Sorry to break up your doom and gloom party but we still live in the greatest country in the world where it's possible for anyone to make a better life for themselves than what their parents had. Is it harder for some? Of course. That's how life works.

---

I literally never said its impossible for Gen Z to succeed. What are you talking about? Quote me saying that. This is getting ridiculous

---

Sorry, exaggerated your constant doom and gloom posts. Point remains the same. And it's certainly not as hopeless as what you are saying here; as evidenced by the amount of examples on this thread that you apparently don't want to read.

Quote:

---

Gen Z cannot afford anything you could afford. Gen Z does not have the job prospects you had. Gen Z does not have the wife prospects you had. It is a sad situation for them, and I do not fault them for being unmotivated given these facts, but they will be the generation that gets this country straight again

---

To add my real world anecdote - our company has hired a number of GenZers over the last few years and have largely had good experiences with them. None of the ones that work for us think they have no chance at succeeding, and they are fine building a career from the ground up just like their parents did.

Things are much better than what the internet tells you they are.

jja79 said:

---

People on the thread are pointing out painting a generation with this broad brush is just wrong.

---

It is possible that there are a large minority of exceptions to generalities that apply to a majority. Every generation will have its statistical tendencies that are created by broadly common experiences that differentiate them from other generations. To some extent social, technological, and economic conditions will be formative in a broad and general sense while allowing for many exceptions.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Keyno said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Keyno said:

---

tysker said:

---

agracer said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

The "olds" could buy a house on the cheap and raise 5 kids on a single income.

---

FWIW, this changed dramatically in the 70s, and by the 80s, assuming it was ever the norm.
The idea of single-worker households throughout working life is mostly a myth. Women have contributed and supplemented household income, even through small jobs and part-time work, for decades.

---

Wife was stay at home mom for 16-years (late 90's - 2010's). Knew plenty of single income homes during that time. Know many now. It's not a myth unless you want it to be.

---

That's your experience. My guess is you're a high-income earner with an educated spouse. But over the last several decades, the majority of families have had some form of dual income (part-time work, supplementary income) at some point in their relationship.

---

Yeah alot of this thread is just posters humble bragging that they made it or their kids are doing good. It's frustrating to sift through

---

Well you keep saying it's impossible for GenZ to succeed and people keep posting real world stories of GenZ succeeding.

Sorry to break up your doom and gloom party but we still live in the greatest country in the world where it's possible for anyone to make a better life for themselves than what their parents had. Is it harder for some? Of course. That's how life works.

---

I literally never said its impossible for Gen Z to succeed. What are you talking about? Quote me saying that. This is getting ridiculous

---

Sorry, exaggerated your constant doom and gloom posts. Point remains the same. And it's certainly not as hopeless as what you are saying here; as evidenced by the amount of examples on this thread that you apparently don't want to read.

Quote:

---

Gen Z cannot afford anything you could afford. Gen Z does not have the job prospects you had. Gen Z does not have the wife prospects you had. It is a sad situation for them, and I do not fault them for being unmotivated given these facts, but they will be the generation that gets this country straight again

---

To add my real world anecdote - our company has hired a number of GenZers over the last few years and have largely had good experiences with them. None of the ones that work for us think they have no chance at succeeding, and they are fine building a career from the ground up just like their parents did.

Things are much better than what the internet tells you they are.

---

OK sweet. Gen Z is all good. That guy that your company hired refutes everything I said. Well done

As usual, the reality is probably somewhere in the middle. Those of us that actually talk to/work with GenZers on a day to day basis don't seem to share the same negativity that the internet/social media feeds us. You're welcome to your chicken little opinions though.

Keyno said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Keyno said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Keyno said:

---

tysker said:

---

agracer said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

The "olds" could buy a house on the cheap and raise 5 kids on a single income.

---

FWIW, this changed dramatically in the 70s, and by the 80s, assuming it was ever the norm.
The idea of single-worker households throughout working life is mostly a myth. Women have contributed and supplemented household income, even through small jobs and part-time work, for decades.

---

Wife was stay at home mom for 16-years (late 90's - 2010's). Knew plenty of single income homes during that time. Know many now. It's not a myth unless you want it to be.

---

That's your experience. My guess is you're a high-income earner with an educated spouse. But over the last several decades, the majority of families have had some form of dual income (part-time work, supplementary income) at some point in their relationship.

---

Yeah alot of this thread is just posters humble bragging that they made it or their kids are doing good. It's frustrating to sift through

---

Well you keep saying it's impossible for GenZ to succeed and people keep posting real world stories of GenZ succeeding.

Sorry to break up your doom and gloom party but we still live in the greatest country in the world where it's possible for anyone to make a better life for themselves than what their parents had. Is it harder for some? Of course. That's how life works.

---

I literally never said its impossible for Gen Z to succeed. What are you talking about? Quote me saying that. This is getting ridiculous

---

Sorry, exaggerated your constant doom and gloom posts. Point remains the same. And it's certainly not as hopeless as what you are saying here; as evidenced by the amount of examples on this thread that you apparently don't want to read.

Quote:

---

Gen Z cannot afford anything you could afford. Gen Z does not have the job prospects you had. Gen Z does not have the wife prospects you had. It is a sad situation for them, and I do not fault them for being unmotivated given these facts, but they will be the generation that gets this country straight again

---

To add my real world anecdote - our company has hired a number of GenZers over the last few years and have largely had good experiences with them. None of the ones that work for us think they have no chance at succeeding, and they are fine building a career from the ground up just like their parents did.

Things are much better than what the internet tells you they are.

---

OK sweet. Gen Z is all good. That guy that your company hired refutes everything I said. Well done

---

I think many of our companies are plucking the good ones. I know ours is. Several of our recent hires are very polished and are getting married in their early to mid 20's and seem to have priorities straight and want to work hard and stand out.

Ogre09 said:

---

tysker said:

---

agracer said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

The "olds" could buy a house on the cheap and raise 5 kids on a single income.

---

FWIW, this changed dramatically in the 70s, and by the 80s, assuming it was ever the norm.
The idea of single-worker households throughout working life is mostly a myth. Women have contributed and supplemented household income, even through small jobs and part-time work, for decades.

---

Wife was stay at home mom for 16-years (late 90's - 2010's). Knew plenty of single income homes during that time. Know many now. It's not a myth unless you want it to be.

---

That's your experience. My guess is you're a high-income earner with an educated spouse. But over the last several decades, the majority of families have had some form of dual income (part-time work, supplementary income) at some point in their relationship.

---

A big part of "needing" two incomes is the creep in what we think we "need." My parents live in a bigger house than their parents did. And mine is bigger than theirs. Cars, electronics, streaming subscriptions, running the AC/heater at whatever temperature you want, eating out all the time. We've raised the standard of living and gone wild with consumerism and live lifes far more luxurious and expensive than we need to.

---

I don't disagree, but there are also advances in healthcare, food access, and overall quality of life that were unthinkable a generation or two ago. Globally, fewer people are dying of malnutrition or living in poverty than ever before.

Even though the difference between 'want' and 'need' is shifting, I'm not sure many of us would be willing to accept a lower quality of life for our children and grandchildren than we experience right now.


eta: how many Boomers, and soon Gen Xers. "need" their Social Security payments? How many Medicare or Medicaid patients "need" that knee surgery or heart transplant? Not all, but I have yet to be informed of anyone giving the money back or refusing to access those services.

I think when you add in taxes (which are outrageous in some Texas area) and home insurance the %% goes up significantly. But it's not near the doom and gloom Gen Z makes it out to be.

tysker said:

---

agracer said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

The "olds" could buy a house on the cheap and raise 5 kids on a single income.

---

FWIW, this changed dramatically in the 70s, and by the 80s, assuming it was ever the norm.
The idea of single-worker households throughout working life is mostly a myth. Women have contributed and supplemented household income, even through small jobs and part-time work, for decades.

---

Wife was stay at home mom for 16-years (late 90's - 2010's). Knew plenty of single income homes during that time. Know many now. It's not a myth unless you want it to be.

---

That's your experience. My guess is you're a high-income earner with an educated spouse. But over the last several decades, the majority of families have had some form of dual income (part-time work, supplementary income) at some point in their relationship.

---

Yes, before and after stay at home time we had dual income. But the single income years were not without some financial stress but we made it work. We didn't have cable TV for many years and no more eating out.

Because the cost of living and raising families is astronomically higher, dual income households are essential in modern society. That's why many parents don't have time to meet their children's teachers or energy to work closely with their children on their homework. Another issue is that many parents had their children out out of wedlock, and some of them have children with multiple partners. Multiple Partner Fertility (MPF), the practice of having children with more than one partner, is strongly associated with increased father absence and reduced father involvement.

However, I think the biggest problem is tolerating poor or unfinished homework in the name of "equity." Grade "inflation," keeps allows schools to evade accountability, but deprive students of the rewards of doing their homework and actually learning. Most teachers know it, but the principals and superintendents are much more concerned about graduation rates than learning. Another major problem is that the majority of the youth want to be professional athletes, actors/actresses, artists, video game designers, influencers, or OnlyFans creators. Instead of working a regular job, these young adults sell themselves to TikTok, YouTube, and OnlyFans thinking they will be making a living, but the average OnlyFans creator earns approximately $150-$180 per month ($1,570-$2,000 annually), according to 2025-2026 data

Keyno said:

---

tysker said:

---

agracer said:

---

Keyno said:

---

I know this board skews "older" so I will try to be polite and respectful.

Gen Z is not growing up in the same world you grew up in. It's barely the same universe.

Everything is overpriced. Our government imports foreigners to compete for college spots and our government imports foreigners to compete for jobs. Our government has let in (and now is failing to deport) 50 million foreigners which drives up the costs of everything. Our government force isolated everyone for a few years. Our government allowed OnlyFans, which opened up the door for young, naive women to just become sex workers from their bedroom. There are many other reasons but that's good for now.

Gen Z cannot afford anything you could afford. Gen Z does not have the job prospects you had. Gen Z does not have the wife prospects you had. It is a sad situation for them, and I do not fault them for being unmotivated given these facts, but they will be the generation that gets this country straight again

---

The 1970's and 12%+ interest rates called and would like a word. Also, gas lines are next in line.

---

Rates and prices are inversely related.
One reason houses are relatively expensive is a decade-plus of government-sponsored and Fed-induced near-0 % interest rates (ZIRP). For most people, their largest investment is their home, and when the country faced widespread defaults and a housing depression, the government stepped in to bail out banks and homeowners.

As an outcome of these bailouts (or "stabilization"), Boomers and GenX homeowners benefited the most from a generational perspective. Then and now.

Since the GFC, home prices have steadily increased, as expected with a generation (GFC + covid) of artificially low rates. The trade-off has been higher home prices and lower affordability for the subsequent generations. We were warning about these issues on this board all the way back during the TARP and QE days.

---

All of this is just getting away from the point. The "olds" could buy a house on the cheap and raise 5 kids on a single income. Yes, yes, I know they worked very hard.

Gen Z cannot do this.

---

Could they do it if they bought a house and didn't sell it and buy another more expensive 3 or 4 times? Buy a tv set and keep it for 15 years and only have free TV over the airwaves ? Not buy a new $1200 cellphone every 2 years? Buy a car and keep it until the wheels fall off and fix it when it breaks down? Only eat out a few times a month?


It isn't just that things are more expensive it's that the list of "necessities" that people pay for is a great deal longer than they were in the 1970s and 80s when my parents were raising me.

Keyno said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Keyno said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Keyno said:

---

tysker said:

---

agracer said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

The "olds" could buy a house on the cheap and raise 5 kids on a single income.

---

FWIW, this changed dramatically in the 70s, and by the 80s, assuming it was ever the norm.
The idea of single-worker households throughout working life is mostly a myth. Women have contributed and supplemented household income, even through small jobs and part-time work, for decades.

---

Wife was stay at home mom for 16-years (late 90's - 2010's). Knew plenty of single income homes during that time. Know many now. It's not a myth unless you want it to be.

---

That's your experience. My guess is you're a high-income earner with an educated spouse. But over the last several decades, the majority of families have had some form of dual income (part-time work, supplementary income) at some point in their relationship.

---

Yeah alot of this thread is just posters humble bragging that they made it or their kids are doing good. It's frustrating to sift through

---

Well you keep saying it's impossible for GenZ to succeed and people keep posting real world stories of GenZ succeeding.

Sorry to break up your doom and gloom party but we still live in the greatest country in the world where it's possible for anyone to make a better life for themselves than what their parents had. Is it harder for some? Of course. That's how life works.

---

I literally never said its impossible for Gen Z to succeed. What are you talking about? Quote me saying that. This is getting ridiculous

---

Sorry, exaggerated your constant doom and gloom posts. Point remains the same. And it's certainly not as hopeless as what you are saying here; as evidenced by the amount of examples on this thread that you apparently don't want to read.

Quote:

---

Gen Z cannot afford anything you could afford. Gen Z does not have the job prospects you had. Gen Z does not have the wife prospects you had. It is a sad situation for them, and I do not fault them for being unmotivated given these facts, but they will be the generation that gets this country straight again

---

To add my real world anecdote - our company has hired a number of GenZers over the last few years and have largely had good experiences with them. None of the ones that work for us think they have no chance at succeeding, and they are fine building a career from the ground up just like their parents did.

Things are much better than what the internet tells you they are.

---

OK sweet. Gen Z is all good. That guy that your company hired refutes everything I said. Well done

---

Many posters have cited numerous examples that Gen Z is not all doom and gloom and you refuse to believe it's true.

At some point we need to all realize that arguing with a fool just brings us all down to their level.

bonfarr said:

---

Could they do it if they bought a house and didn't sell it and buy another more expensive 3 or 4 times? Buy a tv set and keep it for 15 years and only have free TV over the airwaves ? Not buy a new $1200 cellphone every 2 years? Buy a car and keep it until the wheels fall off and fix it when it breaks down? Only eat out a few times a month?


It isn't just that things are more expensive it's that the list of "necessities" that people pay for is a great deal longer than they were in the 1970s and 80s when my parents were raising me.

---

Bingo. Going out to eat was a rare treat when I was growing up. We certainly were not poor nor rich. Anyone have the numbers of how many restaurants there are today per capita vs 1980? I'll bet it's a lot more.

Edit: Google AI says 1 per 550 people in 1980 vs 1 per 330 today.

Also 6% of calories came from fast food in 1970 vs 16% today.

Yep. We went out to eat maybe once a month. Hamburgers were $0.40 and cheese burgers were $0.45. I was never allowed to have a cheese burger. I was in charge of twisting the pole that had the antenna on it depending on which of 3 channels we wanted to watch. Our car had plastic seats and an AM radio. In Fort Stockton plastic seats were a blister waiting to happen and we got 3 radio stations in the car. If we were driving at night we got stations from Mexico. But like kenyo says we had it easier back then.

Two things that you can't discuss

1.) stop eating out
2.) having a side job

These are often ignored or met with "don't have time". I posted here a couple of times that's it's never been easier to eat at home. It's much easier to eat at home and eat healthy even having incredibly different kind of meals. If people say "I don't have time to cook" they are lying. There are so many different websites and reels that have amazing cheap and healthy recipes.

tysker said:

---

Ogre09 said:

---

tysker said:

---

agracer said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

The "olds" could buy a house on the cheap and raise 5 kids on a single income.

---

FWIW, this changed dramatically in the 70s, and by the 80s, assuming it was ever the norm.
The idea of single-worker households throughout working life is mostly a myth. Women have contributed and supplemented household income, even through small jobs and part-time work, for decades.

---

Wife was stay at home mom for 16-years (late 90's - 2010's). Knew plenty of single income homes during that time. Know many now. It's not a myth unless you want it to be.

---

That's your experience. My guess is you're a high-income earner with an educated spouse. But over the last several decades, the majority of families have had some form of dual income (part-time work, supplementary income) at some point in their relationship.

---

A big part of "needing" two incomes is the creep in what we think we "need." My parents live in a bigger house than their parents did. And mine is bigger than theirs. Cars, electronics, streaming subscriptions, running the AC/heater at whatever temperature you want, eating out all the time. We've raised the standard of living and gone wild with consumerism and live lifes far more luxurious and expensive than we need to.

---

I don't disagree, but there are also advances in healthcare, food access, and overall quality of life that were unthinkable a generation or two ago. Globally, fewer people are dying of malnutrition or living in poverty than ever before.

Even though the difference between 'want' and 'need' is shifting, I'm not sure many of us would be willing to accept a lower quality of life for our children and grandchildren than we experience right now.


eta: how many Boomers, and soon Gen Xers. "need" their Social Security payments? How many Medicare or Medicaid patients "need" that knee surgery or heart transplant? Not all, but I have yet to be informed of anyone giving the money back or refusing to access those services.

---

Sure, globally the standard of living is way up and the poorest of the poor are less poor. I don't see what that, or seniors collecting SS and medicare, have anything to do with dual incomes and the rise in cost of living due to overconsumption.

My wife works and makes good money because we choose to. I'm not saying you can support a household on a single McDonald's cashier income, but we also all spend more than we need to. Modest housing, groceries, utilities, clothing, healthcare, basic necessities don't need 2 incomes. Cable, HBO, Netflix, restaurants multiple times a week, big house, 70F in the house year round, Disney vacations, Amazon addiction, new cars, boat, RV, 57 Christmas presents, smart watches, iPads for the kids, 70" TVs, yard guys, and housekeepers probably does need 2 incomes.

It's a little understated that lifestyle creep isn't simply a phenomenon of entitled children.

All the talk about bigger houses misses that fewer smaller ones are being built because of how little money there is in it. Lots of multi family class A construction out there has created excess vacancy (at present) and competition for housing, but it's still class A. Builders and developers chase money and land is moving farther from the cities.

Used cars don't have the same delta they used to with new; government regs have driven up the base model cost of all of these nicer fancier cars, so saying someone has better isn't a great statement about their preferences.

It needs to be acknowledged that 'starter' isn't simply moving because it's what Gen Z wants and demands. They're pursuing what's available as much as anything else: they don't build or make these things or own the businesses.

Ogre09 said:

---

tysker said:

---

Ogre09 said:

---

tysker said:

---

agracer said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

The "olds" could buy a house on the cheap and raise 5 kids on a single income.

---

FWIW, this changed dramatically in the 70s, and by the 80s, assuming it was ever the norm.
The idea of single-worker households throughout working life is mostly a myth. Women have contributed and supplemented household income, even through small jobs and part-time work, for decades.

---

Wife was stay at home mom for 16-years (late 90's - 2010's). Knew plenty of single income homes during that time. Know many now. It's not a myth unless you want it to be.

---

That's your experience. My guess is you're a high-income earner with an educated spouse. But over the last several decades, the majority of families have had some form of dual income (part-time work, supplementary income) at some point in their relationship.

---

A big part of "needing" two incomes is the creep in what we think we "need." My parents live in a bigger house than their parents did. And mine is bigger than theirs. Cars, electronics, streaming subscriptions, running the AC/heater at whatever temperature you want, eating out all the time. We've raised the standard of living and gone wild with consumerism and live lifes far more luxurious and expensive than we need to.

---

I don't disagree, but there are also advances in healthcare, food access, and overall quality of life that were unthinkable a generation or two ago. Globally, fewer people are dying of malnutrition or living in poverty than ever before.

Even though the difference between 'want' and 'need' is shifting, I'm not sure many of us would be willing to accept a lower quality of life for our children and grandchildren than we experience right now.


eta: how many Boomers, and soon Gen Xers. "need" their Social Security payments? How many Medicare or Medicaid patients "need" that knee surgery or heart transplant? Not all, but I have yet to be informed of anyone giving the money back or refusing to access those services.

---

Sure, globally the standard of living is way up and the poorest of the poor are less poor. I don't see what that, or seniors collecting SS and medicare, have anything to do with dual incomes and the rise in cost of living due to overconsumption.

My wife works and makes good money because we choose to. I'm not saying you can support a household on a single McDonald's cashier income, but we also all spend more than we need to. Modest housing, groceries, utilities, clothing, healthcare, basic necessities don't need 2 incomes. Cable, HBO, Netflix, restaurants multiple times a week, big house, 70F in the house year round, Disney vacations, Amazon addiction, new cars, boat, RV, 57 Christmas presents, smart watches, iPads for the kids, 70" TVs, yard guys, and housekeepers probably does need 2 incomes.

---

Reliance on government programs is a contributing driver of overconsumption. This is the moral hazard of these programs. Plus, having health insurance directly leads to overconsumption of healthcare goods and services (thanks Obama?!). The same logic follows for Medicare and Medicaid. When you're not paying the bill, it blurs the line between "need" and "want."

The system has created an intergenerational transfer of labor: younger workers fund a disproportionate share of these programs relative to their current usage, while older populations are the primary beneficiaries. And when there is a shortfall in government receipts, the Treasury borrows more and the Feb prints more, which directly leads to inflation. Rinse and repeat. Younger workers are squeezed on both ends.

Government fiscal and monetary policies since the GFC and Covid have directly led to higher asset prices (real estate, stock markets, etc.), benefiting these asset owners, which is/was more likely to be the elderly. Additionally, increasing government intervention in aspects of the economy (namely, health care and education) has crowded out market forces, resulting in less transparent market-clearing prices.

As asset prices and the cost of living rise, many younger households have become increasingly reliant on dual incomes just to maintain a comparable standard of living. I agree that people don't "need" these goods and services, but it is getting harder to differentiate between "wants" and "needs."