A Boring Dystopia

I have a burning hatred for this article, and you get to be the recipient of my rant about it, but I don't mean any of this as an attack on you. I don't think it will read that way, but I want to say it ahead of time, because I am inspired to do a much more full analysis of why this article, and its author, are bullshit.

I do not think it’s accurate to say the author is not arguing that this generation is at fault. The quotes that were chosen, the data that was emphasized, and the piece's structures all point toward a kind of "soft-blame" thesis. That thesis being that thirty-somethings could have reached traditional milestones but didn’t, mostly because of their own choices and/or unrealistic expectations. The author never seriously pushes back on that implication.

Let’s look at what she actually includes and what she doesn’t challenge. Here are some examples of implied agency (“it’s their choice”):

1. Choosing high-cost cities despite better options.

“He’s paying $1,700 in monthly rent to live with roommates in Brooklyn.”

“When it became clear his dreams of homeownership were not achievable in New York, he recently got help from his parents to close on a fixer-upper in his hometown of Easton, Pa.”

“She knows her salary would go farther in her hometown of Philadelphia, but she prefers to stay in L.A.”

These aren’t framed as traps. They’re framed as conscious choices. The author could have emphasized the structural necessity of clustering near job opportunities or family networks, but she doesn’t. Instead, she highlights that both subjects prefer expensive metros, implying that their cost-of-living struggles are at least partly self-inflicted. It also implies they could move to lower cost of living areas and not suffer a wage decrease as well - it's not so straightforward as is strongly implied.

2. Refusing to downsize or cut luxuries.

“Inflation has raised the price of small luxuries, such as her Spotify subscription, but she doesn’t want to give them up.”

The “small luxuries” quote feels deliberately included to make readers think, so you can afford Spotify but not a mortgage? Avocado toast. The author does not counter that framing by mentioning that skipping a subscription will do next to nothing to make home ownership feasible; she leaves the quote to speak for itself, which effectively endorses the idea that younger adults’ priorities are the real issue.

3. Idealistic standards in relationships.

“He’d also rather stay single than compromise on the wrong fit.”

Again, the author does not provide commentary pushing back on this. There’s no line like, “This desire for compatibility reflects how the marriage market itself has changed.” Instead, she lets the reader infer that they’re single because they’re picky.

4. Framing “freedom from old pressures” as the problem.

“Growing up with less pressure to follow the same narrow route to adulthood… has raised the bar for what these milestones look like.”

This line subtly redefines the freedom to choose different life paths as the reason people are stuck. It is not framed as an adaptation to changing circumstances, but rather as an indulgence that prevents commitment. It comes across as an inversion of sympathy: what sounds like neutral observation actually functions as a subtle criticism.

5. Self-focus over family formation.

“Motherhood, she says, is a ‘nonstarter.’ ‘Kids become the first priority,’ says Fuller. ‘I’m still figuring myself out as a priority.’”

There’s no attempt to contextualize Fuller’s choice within the structural realities that make parenthood materially and logistically prohibitive. No weight given to things like the extreme cost of childcare, stagnant wages relative to housing, inadequate parental leave, limited healthcare coverage, and the lack of systemic support for working families. The author’s choice to close the entire article on this quote gives it enormous rhetorical weight. The final word is that adulthood is being deferred because people are self-absorbed or uncertain, not because society made parenthood impossible. Remember the power given to the final word here, because I'm going to do it too - partially as an example supporting this point.

What you pointed out were the author’s attempts to hedge around that main argument, and here’s why I find those hedges disingenuous. While the author does acknowledge economic hardship a few times, those moments feel more like token gestures than genuine balance. The references are brief, mostly numerical, and each one is immediately undercut by a counterpoint that shifts attention back to personal attitudes and choices.

1. “The conventional explanation… is that they can’t afford to grow up… Yet this doesn’t quite explain what’s going on.”

This sentence dismisses affordability as the dominant factor before showing any serious data that it might be. It sets up the rest of the article to downplay structural forces.

2. “It’s true that 30-somethings have had a run of tough economic luck… But the numbers paint a more complicated picture.”

That “but” flips sympathy into skepticism. The article follows that turn by citing Labor Department data claiming that median wages for full-time workers ages 35-44 have risen 16% since 2000 (from about $58,500 to $67,600, adjusted for inflation) and Federal Reserve data showing a 66% rise in wealth for 30-somethings between 1989 and 2022 (from roughly $62,000 to $103,000). Those figures are plausible but not clearly sourced, and they rely on broad aggregates rather than detailed, verifiable cohort data. More importantly, the article treats these averages as evidence of improved financial footing without accounting for inflation in housing, childcare, healthcare, tuition, debt, transportation, or general cost of living which are the real choke points for this generation. In that context, the interpretation is under-contextualized at best and misleading at worst: aggregate gains say little about actual affordability or distributional reality.

3. “To be sure, financial averages are just that.”

That’s a classic hedge. It is a single sentence acknowledging inequality, that is immediately followed by more emphasis on choice and mindset. It exists to claim objectivity but doesn’t alter the argument or really acknowledge factors that do not support the thesis I suggested above.

4. “A sizable share of this generation is worse-off than their parents were.”

True, but she immediately pivots back to “still, growing up with less pressure…” This concession is rhetorical cover. It gives the appearance of balance while keeping the causal blame with the subjects’ attitudes.

The reason that all feels so disingenuous to me is that the issue isn’t just what the author says, but how the piece is built. Every quote chosen blames individuals (high expectations, luxuries, refusal to compromise) and is left unchallenged. She gives experts who blame attitude (Reeves, Kearney) far more space than anyone who would highlight structural barriers. When she finally acknowledges real problems she calls them “complicated,” softens them with “averages,” then shifts back to “expectations.”

If she truly disagreed with the “it’s their fault” narrative, she could have included economists who emphasize wage stagnation relative to cost of living, systemic childcare shortages, or the collapse of affordable housing. She didn’t. That omission is itself an argument. So yes, technically the article hedges against my initial read of it, but I think it is fair to suggest that those hedges are thin disclaimers attached to a piece that, in practice, amplifies the exact worldview it pretends to interrogate:

“Young people say they can’t afford to grow up, but actually they can; they’re just pickier, more self-focused, and less willing to sacrifice.”

That’s the message readers are left with, because that’s where the author ends the story and anchors every example. The quotes weren’t balanced. They were curated to support a moral narrative of generational fault, and they are never truly refuted, which is functionally the same as agreeing with them.