Do Young Men Need $1 Million to Live a Middle-Class Lifestyle?
Not exactly, but politicians do need to take their concerns more seriously—it's expensive out there.
Dave Smith is a libertarian comedian and podcaster; he and I agree on some things and disagree on others. He recently sat down for an interview with Jack Neel, a very successful YouTuber, and made some comments that went viral. Here was the clip in question:
Dave Smith Explains Why It Feels Impossible for Young Men to Succeed in 2026
"You've got to kind of make $1 million a year to live kind of a middle-class lifestyle."
(Via Jack Neel) pic.twitter.com/XNgpjClLUF
— jack neel (@jackneel) November 10, 2026
I saw Smith getting plenty of pushback from various people on this, and in the strictest sense, that criticism is deserved: In general, it is not the case that people need to be earning $1 million to enjoy a middle-class lifestyle. In my home state of Michigan, the median household income is around $65,000, and that is considered middle class. Michigan has the 28th highest income of the 50 states, so it's about in the middle of the pack.
You are reading Free Media from Robby Soave and Reason. Get more of Robby's on-the-media, disinformation, and free speech coverage.
A person making $65,000 a year should be able to buy a house that costs between $200,000 and $300,000, and the average price of a house in Michigan does indeed fall within that range. There are plenty of states where housing is even cheaper.
All that said, I understand where Smith is coming from. There are a lot more economic opportunity in cities, and it's rational for young people to want to move there to chase higher-paying jobs. But housing prices in many cities—New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C. (where I live)—are astronomical.
Moreover, having kids is expensive. Education is expensive. Childcare is expensive. These things are highly regulated and subjected to various governmental constraints that drive up the price; D.C., for instance, keeps trying to mandate that daycare workers have degrees in early childhood education, which lowers the available supply.
When I hear young men complain that they're making good money but still aren't rich enough to start families, I think this is primarily what they have in mind: housing and then education and childcare for any kids down the line. Again, there are places where this isn't so pricey—or if you live near your own family and can get grandparents to babysit. But if you're on your own, in an expensive city, or near one, where the supply of housing is artificially constrained by regulation and daycare costs most of your entire salary, I could understand how you might feel like a middle-class lifestyle is perpetually just out of reach.
We always have to keep in mind that many things that make life easier have gotten less expensive over time. The average family owns more cars than 50 or 80 years ago; houses are larger on average; consumer electronics have become so cheap that even many poorer Americans end up owning smartphones, laptops, and flat-screen televisions. It's not all bad.
At the same time, politicians in both parties seem inclined to want to reduce the tax burden for every group of Americans except young professionals who want to start families. Michigan's Democratic Sen.-elect Abdul El-Sayed wants to freeze property taxes for retirees but not younger homeowners, even though retirees tend to have much more wealth—and also derive most of the government benefits, i.e., Social Security and Medicare. This is not exactly a pro-family set of beliefs, and I was glad to see him get called out on it by Breaking Points' Saagar Enjeti (another commentator with whom I have some agreements and also many disagreements).
Republicans are fretting that they performed dismally with young male voters in the recent midterms, undoing President Donald Trump's huge gains with this demographic in 2024. If I were trying to win back family-focused guys who are chasing middle-class comfort, I would focus on free market reforms that would let them keep more of their own cash and spend it efficiently on things they need: income and property tax reductions for everyone (i.e., not just older Americans, tipped workers, or other highly specific groups); licensing, zoning, and regulatory reform; school choice, etc.
This Week on Free Media
We tackle the Jensen Huang honeypot scandal on Freed Up! Watch and subscribe.
Worth Watching
I have finished the child portion of The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time remake. My thoughts are mostly positive: The game looks and sounds great, and it's thrilling to spend time in the Hyrule of my own childhood, fully fleshed out and updated for 2026. I seriously had tears in my eyes when Saria first appeared toting her ocarina—that's how much I love this game, and the remake is very faithful.
But that would be my criticism: It's too faithful. It's almost exactly the same game. Nearly everything appears in the same place. It looks better, and some of the mechanics are slightly different (Link can move around while using the slingshot), and the dialogue is improved. But like…the golden spiders that you collect as part of an optional side quest all appear in almost exactly the same places. I know, for instance, there is a spider that appears at night on the window of Lon Lon Ranch in the original game. Sure enough, it's there again. But there are like 100 of these things. Couldn't they have moved some of them to make it more of a challenge? Or provide a "Hard Mode" where I have to hunt for them somewhere else?
I suppose my level of expertise here makes me an atypical fan. If the last time you played this game was 20 years ago, you'll probably get a kick out of the level of familiarity. But I have replayed the game roughly a million times. I beat it again last month. I watch speedruns of it on my laptop while I eat lunch most days. What does this remake offer me, hmmm?
I am still loving it. But I was hoping there would be an extra dungeon, some new puzzles, or different spider locations…something.
