Fewer young men are in the labor force, more are living at home
I don&#x27;t think it&#x27;s a tragedy. The overly dramatic media and pundits get this all wrong in labeling it such.<p>Young people are simply responding to incentives to live at home longer. Living expenses keep going up relative to inflation and wages,  such as home prices, rent, insurance, etc. Living at home is a good way save money, even for the employed. Family formation is expensive and fraught with risks such as divorce and having to pay child support.<p>In having to choose between playing video games at home, versus a low-paying job and commuting, video games may be the rational choice depending  on one&#x27;s individual preferences. So someone who values leisure over money, would stay at home. Someone who has a higher preference for money than leisure would go to work even if the pay sucks. I don&#x27;t see anything wrong with people voluntarily choosing leisure over work, because there will always be some people who will choose work over leisure.  Someone who makes a lot of money may be more inclined to work, not because they are less lazy than someone who plays games at home, but that earning $100+&#x2F;hour and no video games is more enticing of proposition than $11&#x2F;hour and not playing video games; if you give the $11&#x2F;hour guy $100&#x2F;hour, then playing video games at home becomes a less attractive proposition.