If you’ve been following recent discussions around generational dynamics, you’ve probably encountered a range of negative descriptors aimed at Gen Z: lazy, entitled, self-absorbed, and unwilling to work. These labels, however, are not new; they echo a familiar cycle of generational hazing.
Baby Boomers were labeled the “Me Generation,” Gen X faced the “Slacker Generation” tag, and Millennials were often dismissed as fragile and entitled. While the terminology changes, the narrative remains consistent: each generation is cast as the problematic one. Perhaps it’s time to consider whether the underlying issue is genuinely generational.
Recently, I participated in the YouTube series Surrounded, which brings individuals with opposing viewpoints together to discuss issues often reduced to polarizing soundbites. The format encourages raw, unfiltered debate without a script.
Entering the discussion, I was prepared to argue that Gen Z faces uniquely challenging circumstances: we navigated adulthood through a pandemic, entered a housing crisis, and dealt with skyrocketing costs associated with education and healthcare.
While these issues are indeed pressing, I quickly found that the generational divide wasn’t the main reason for the challenges facing my demographic. The episode, dubbed “One Gen Z Member of Congress vs. 20 Boomers,” felt like clickbait—yet it turned out to offer significant insights.
The Boomers were ready to debate, and we had our disagreements. However, as the conversation evolved, highlighting an entire generation as solely responsible for our economic hardships became increasingly untenable.
The real divide appeared less about generational labels and more about power—specifically, the disparity between those who shape economic policy and everybody else who must live with the consequences of those policies.
Since 1978, when Boomers were the age Gen Z is today, the wealth distribution has shifted dramatically. Wealth held by the top 0.1 percent has surged from around 7 to approximately 18 percent. Meanwhile, the top 1 percent’s share of national income has nearly doubled—from about 10 to 19 percent. Currently, the top 1 percent controls about 31 percent of America’s wealth, while the bottom 50 percent hold only 2.5 percent. Such concentration of wealth equates to an overwhelming influence over elections, policy-making, and public discourse.
Editor’s picks
Generational demographics do not dictate fiscal policies, interest rates, or housing prices. These decisions are made by established institutions and the individuals who control them, leaving the rest of the population to grapple with the repercussions.
For instance, Gen Z is confronting an unprecedented housing crisis. In 1978, a median home sold for about $55,000, while the median household income stood at around $15,000. Today, the average home price is approximately $424,000, compared to a median income around $84,000. Home prices have surged about eightfold, while incomes have only increased by roughly five and a half times. This shift has pushed the median age of first-time homebuyers to 40, up from 29 in 1981.
The issue isn’t that Baby Boomers bought homes; it’s the systemic barriers in place that render homeownership increasingly unattainable for subsequent generations. This isn’t merely a personality problem across generations; it’s an economic challenge.
Related Content
This same pattern emerges in higher education. Gen Z has been encouraged to pursue college degrees as a gateway to better jobs and success.
In 1978, the average tuition and fees at a public four-year college was about $688—a figure that translates to roughly $3,300 in today’s dollars. By contrast, today’s average costs have climbed to over $11,600 for in-state students.
For previous generations, a college degree facilitated upward mobility. For many in Gen Z, securing a degree has become merely the cost of entry into an increasingly competitive job market.
I did not complete college and I carry no student debt, so I understand the fairness argument surrounding loan forgiveness. Yet I recognize the unfairness of imposing on an entire generation the expectation of obtaining a degree, charging exorbitant tuition, and burdening them with debt. This debt is not just a personal issue; it impacts the wider economy. For too many young Americans, the dream of a college education has morphed into a financial albatross rather than a stepping stone to stability.
Contrary to the stereotype of being unwilling to work, more than half of the Gen Z workforce is engaged in gig work, side hustles, or second jobs just to make ends meet.
It’s time to debunk the myth that Gen Z lacks a work ethic. We must shift our focus to why the extensive hours put in by previous generations, and the hard work now undertaken by Gen Z, have yielded insufficient financial rewards.
The blame placed on different generations serves as a diversion from the actual issues at hand.
Frustration over an inequitable economy has morphed into a generational squabble. Young Americans often believe that Boomers are to blame for their lost opportunities, while older generations think young people simply refuse to work hard. Both viewpoints overlook a more crucial question: Who has constructed an economy that siphons wealth to billionaires and corporations while assigning individual blame to others for economic struggles?
We’re too busy pointing fingers at each other instead of addressing the systemic issues that perpetuate our challenges, allowing the wealthy to profit from our discord while they continue to amass wealth.
Ultimately, the issue isn’t that one generation has driven another into hardship. The real challenge lies in the concentration of our nation’s wealth and power among too few.
Every generation has aspired to one fundamental goal: that hard work and dedication will lead to a better life for themselves and their descendants.
Today, my generation is questioning the validity of that promise.
Participating in the Surrounded debate revealed a compelling insight. While the focus seemed to be on generational divides, deeper conversations revealed that shared experiences and frustrations often eclipsed our differences. At one point during the discussion, a debater confessed that she didn’t feel the need to challenge me precisely because she agreed with my stance.
This revelation highlighted that disagreements over solutions need not signify a lack of agreement on the underlying problems. Democracy thrives on discourse, but the crucial question today is whether ordinary Americans—across generations—retain sufficient power to influence the framework of their country. While we remain embroiled in blame, those with the highest wealth and power continue to dictate tax policies, zoning regulations, and the conditions of our leases.
Trending Stories
I’m not advocating for an end to debate; after all, democracy thrives on dialogue. I urge us to take a more challenging path: identify individuals you’ve been told are at fault for your struggles and engage with them—face-to-face, as we did. You will likely disagree, which is essential. Yet, in that dialogue, you may discover shared frustrations, marking the shift from a generational skirmish to a collaborative effort.
It’s this potential for coalition-building that those who benefit from our division truly fear.
