Yes of course they exist. The question is whether Gen Z kids working crazy hours are a) less common and b) meet with social disapproval from their peers.
I think it’s the latter that stands out most in my mind, because it was the opposite 30+ years ago (recall films like Working Girl from the late 1980s).
High performing workers facing social disapproval is not unique to recent generations.
Also, the notion that one has to work crazy hours just to do ok is not a notion that everyone subscribes to. Maybe more so if one is trying to be elite, but not everyone aims for that.
It’s never too late to change your mind. It becomes too late to relaunch on a professional career track if you’ve been acting like a clock-puncher (even when you’re not).
So younger people who want the more laid back/less stressed out lifestyles of the past- more power to you. But you need to be developing your skills and creating impact and value even as you are prioritizing your yoga classes and travel over working late.
Example- the CFA exam. Three parts, requires discipline to self-study. In the past, candidates would eagerly volunteer that they’ve signed up, even if they have yet to take part 1 or even figure out a study plan. Most jobs in finance do NOT require the CFA (it’s not like the nursing boards or passing the bar) but I don’t know of any employer who doesn’t see it as a positive.
In the last few years I’m noticing a trend- younger people in finance who have to be cajoled by their employer “at least try part 1”. The question is often “do I get paid more money if I pass?” No, you don’t get paid more money. But you become eligible for a lot more internal roles which may require it, you get tagged as someone who is investing in their own intellectual capital, you become more valuable on the outside to your next employer both for the skill it demonstrates (it’s a straight up certification- you’ve either passed all three parts or not) and because employers recognize that it takes discipline and commitment to study.
Clearly a shift. I’ve heard younger folks tell me “I don’t need the CFA, I have a BS in finance”. Well, nobody NEEDS the CFA. It’s not the insulin for your diabetes. It’s extra. It makes you more employable down the road. And if you have a BS in finance, and you truly believe it’s duplicative, then just sign up for the darn test since you already know the material???
If they don’t bother to sign up for the SAT, a much shorter and easier exam, it is unlikely they bother to sign up for the CFA
Many people making poor financial decisions isn’t unique to this generation. What seem to be different now are:
A much higher proportion of people getting college degrees at proportionally greater cost relative to their family incomes than ever before.
A proliferation of college “majors”, some of which don’t necessarily prepare students adequately for careers.
The higher cost of real estate that takes a greater share of young people’s incomes in many areas in this country and around the world.
People of whatever generation don’t all have the same goals. Some don’t want kids. Some don’t want to own homes, preferring flexibility in where they live and work.
Some will happily take less money in exchange for working fewer hours, or having a better work-life balance, however they define that.
Some happily participate in the gig economy as 1099 employees, where they have relatively more control of where and when they work…this doesn’t always mean they make less money either.
Many people (and even some employers) perceive those who have stayed with the same company for a long time as non-risk takers (perceived as not a desirable trait).
I don’t think any generation can be summarized in a few talking points. While there are plenty of gig workers, there are also plenty of Gen Zers who are competing for more ‘prestigious’ jobs like in banking and consulting.
I do agree that people have to live within their means, and for those who don’t, it can be difficult to fund their lifestyle, pay off student debt, save for a house, afford kids, etc.
Let’s not assume anything wrong here. If the husband could ONLY find a fast food job with his college degree, the author would have surely mentioned that to support her advocacy.
Since she did not mention anything like that, perhaps the H is working only as much as he wants? Could be part-time while he tries his entrepreneurial skills or volunteers, or looking for a new career to pivot from his journalism/rec/other saturated low paying major, is just enjoying life?
Disapproval from co-workers who are competing for promotions and pay rises is very different from peer disapproval outside the workplace (“why are you working instead of coming out to the bar?”). As your linked article notes, co-workers only undermine high performing colleagues when they are competing for limited resources.
Or the article mentioned they moved to a lower cost of living area. In my area a $40K salary is a fine or normal salary, even for someone middle aged.
I know plenty of college grads working in professional positions making what the husband makes. Social services jobs, higher education administration jobs, accounting positions, etc. I’m often surprised at what a lot of people on CC think people earn.
I think CC is probably oversubscribed by people on the coasts. Where I live in MA, the average teacher salary (suburban school district, fairly affluent town) is in the low $90s. I know nurses who make in the low 6 figures. Much of that is a by product of living where we do (in contrast, my SIL who teaches in Louisiana makes in the high $50s - after nearly 30 years).
When “middle class” means income too high to get college financial aid anywhere for many posters, it should not be too surprising.
Whereas in my district, a public school teacher with a PhD maxes out at $69K. The article mentioned they were in a lower cost of living area. The wife was earning NYC salary, but was able to work remotely.
This is one reason I don’t take complaints about higher costs of living areas too seriously. Salaries are so much higher in general in higher cost of living areas it generally all evens out. Not to mention - as someone who has lived in both lower and higher cost of living areas - there isn’t a ton of difference in costs once you take real estate out of the equation. Sure a 3-bedroom 2-bath house will cost wildly different amounts in various markets but other costs are not all that different and more than made up for by salaries in many cases (obviously this is total generalization; I have no doubt there are many personal stories that negate this). But again the median household income in the US is just over $70,000 -
And that is why this article is so tone deaf: “woe is me, we are making ~2.5x the national median income and we want the taxpayers to pay off our student loans…”
Maybe $166k income is “poor” for Fortune readers. But if that is the case, $64k should be a small amount.
(bit of a rant ahead)
Part of the article linked above says this:
"They currently live in an 800-square-foot, two-bedroom home. But with interest rates and prices as high as they are now—comparable homes are $100,000 more expensive than they were when the couple bought their current home—Kelly says even in a place with a lower cost of living, they just can’t afford a new home big enough for a growing family.
There are tradeoffs. She can’t make the math work on funding her retirement, paying off her debt, saving for a home, and affording children."
Can you raise a family in an 800 sq ft house? YES, YOU CAN! Literally thousands of people have done it before. They can, too.
Do you “NEED” a bigger house? No.
Do you WANT a bigger house? Yes.
Suck it up, buttercup. Life is all about choices. And some of them are tough choices. Where you have to give something up in order to get what you want later on. Stay in the house you CAN afford. If you WANT to have children, you CAN have children and make it work in your 800 sq ft home. Plenty of people in big cities everywhere manage to raise kids in apartments without a whole lot of square footage. YOU CAN DO IT, TOO!
Be grateful that you could even afford to BUY a home. Count your blessings. Quit it with the “woe is me, I can’t have everything I want right now” nonsense.
And about “she can’t make the math work,” that’s nonsense. She & spouse could each find, for example, part time jobs working for $16/hr, 15 hr/week. Assuming working 50 out of 52 weeks a year x 2 earners of that extra income, before taxes, it would be $24,000/year. Put all of that towards paying off your student debt.
Assuming, let’s say, between state & fed income taxes + social security & medicare taxes, they take home 65% of that, that turns into $15,600/year directly to chip away the $64,000 of student debt. After year 1 of doing that, you’ve reduced your student debt by 24.375%.
Also, in the meantime, work your butt off in your regular full time job so you can gain more skills, be seen as a team player & a hard worker, get things lined up so you’re aiming for a promotion in a couple of years from now.
The woman’s comment about having to save money for their future child’s own student loans just shows how clueless she & her spouse are about finances.
Guess what? All of the rest of us had to struggle in order to somehow make it work! It wasn’t a walk in the park.
Guess what else? HAVING KIDS IS EXPENSIVE! If you don’t like that, then DON’T HAVE CHILDREN!
</end rant>
Agreed. That’s a typical salary for a staff writer at a local publication where I live. It’s also typical for several local government clerical jobs, and that is just what I know of. I’m sure there are more.
The funny thing about having kids…by the time you can afford them, they’re grown up. And really, having less to give is actually good for them anyway.
I grew up in a town with lots of big families. Most of my friends had three bedrooms - one for the parents, one for the girls and one for the boys. But I knew a lot of big families with lots of kids and only two bedrooms. And almost always, just one bathroom. No one even thought twice about that being normal. Although some families, mine included, eventually moved to larger homes, many of my old friends’ parents lived there until they passed away. It just wasn’t unusual to live within our means. There are definitely plenty of people (young and older) who have higher expectations of what they need now (or maybe it was always that way but their stories are publicly shared now). However, most of the young people I know are content to live within their means.