About 26% of Gen Z investors said they treat sports betting as a “deliberate, ongoing part of their long-term financial strategy,” according to the survey. That’s compared with roughly 14% of millennials, 6% of Gen X, and 1% of baby boomers.
Young adults right now face a bleak job market and soaring housing costs, often paired with the pressure to start paying off student debt.
Eight in 10 Gen Z investors said they believe these riskier vehicles can get them to where they want to be more quickly than traditional methods. Among millennials feeling behind, two-thirds felt that way.
Some Still Feel Behind and are Turning to Prediction Markets, Sports Betting and Crypto to Catch Up, According to Northwestern Mutual’s 2026 Planning & Progress Study
People don’t have to smoke either, but the societal cost of treating all those avoidable cancers and premature deaths is far greater than the simple cost of discouraging the behavior in the first place. Folks that gamble as a plan for financial security will end up broke and relying on society/government for shelter and food later in life. Again, far cheaper and wiser to discourage the behavior than to pay for the inevitable result.
They indeed may deserve that, but then you are also OK with paying taxes to cover their Medicaid and SNAP because they are broke?
I also generally think people need to suffer the consequences of their own actions (my libertarian leanings), but I also would prefer not to pay for such (also libertarian leanings). I would prefer to pay a lesser amount to discourage (perhaps ‘educate about’ is a better term) such behavior so that they are tax contributors instead of tax consumers.
It’s natural inclination to draw that conclusion but it isn’t necessarily accurate. Who is to say what will happen if people are allowed to do largely what they want with their own money? In fact, sometimes losing money is a great lesson that changes one’s behavior to become a better steward of it. In addition, you make another assumption that may also be inaccurate. Which is, people that tend to be poor managers of money are like that across the board. Closing off one method of gambling, I doubt that prevents someone from blowing it elsewhere.
I don’t think there is any evidence to suggest that someone that is prevented from gambling will avoid public assistance nor is there any evidence to suggest that gambling increases the likelihood they will be reliant on the govt benefits.
The University of Kentucky did some research a while back on lottery winners. The average winner filed for bankruptcy inside of 5 years. We personally know people that won an 8 figure lottery and filed for bankruptcy in about 6 years. Taking away certain vices, it’s not going to prevent the average person from blowing it all. As Munger would say, there is no cure for stupid.
There is an excellent research study, if I remember correctly, it is called the Stanford Marshmallow Study. They would bring children into a room and offer them two options. 1) they could eat the marshmallow in from of them or 2) wait 15 minutes and be rewarded with two marshmallows.
What was unique about the study was the longevity of it. They followed the children well into adulthood (for 25 or 30 years). What they found was the children that did not exhibit delayed gratification (ate the first marshmallow) tended as adults to have higher rates of abuse of drugs and alcohol. They tended to not goes a far in their education and tended to have less successful careers and personal lives. To your point, education might be a way to address the issue. The study goes into more detail as why certain children waited and others didn’t. But, trying to shutoff legal temptations for adults, it won’t fix the problem. Wouldn’t it be better to attack the problem at its root rather than trying to restrict all of society’s behavior?
That was the initial conclusion. The explanation is that outcomes depend on factors like expectations about whether adults will keep promises, socioeconomic circumstances (I better eat the marsh mellow now, because I might not get one later), and learned strategies for dealing with temptation. Notably, rich kids did better than poor kids.
Interestingly, tribal kids from rural Africa did better than German kids. Possibly because of the highly social way they are raised.
But if you correct for things like socio-economic status, there is no difference in adult outcomes. In other words, it was how you were raised, not internal wiring.
However, I get your point: Some people are going to smoke, some people are going to drink too much, and some people are going to gamble too much. These are things that should be discouraged even if we shouldn’t try to stop them entirely.
The original thesis was that we are hardwired or develop a discipline for deferred gratification. As you point out, socio-economic circumstances in the household play more of role than initially thought. In a home with few groceries, a child would eat right away for fear there may not be food later.
I think my other point is we need to better understand the root problem and then think about policies that might be helpful in addressing it. Beyond that, other than awareness, I see no reason to further restrict another person’s right to do what they want with gambling, even if the outcome is likely negative. Should we regulate people from buying expensive purses or cars that are disproportionately high to their net worth or income? Why is one behavior worse than the other, if they are both equally financially destructive? In addition, some lessons need to be learned by way of some personal struggle. The fool being separated from his or her money is part of the process.
When I was young, I made several foolish investments and did many foolish and dangerous things. The key point is that I was young and had time to turn things around. If someone had bailed me out or prevented me from failing I don’t believe any lessons would have been learned.
IMO, it’s not a sufficient reason to ban it, if that’s your solution. Furthermore, individual accountability needs to play a prominent role. Additionally, nobody has provided any evidence it would prevent the gambler from doing so elsewhere or by other means.
I am not in favor of a ban - which I think largely achieves the opposite of the intended goal. I am in favor of education - which I think is more cost effective than the lack of.
Take smoking for example. We do a marginally decent job of educating people against the harms of smoking. We don’t ban it. I think that education is more cost effective than the cost of treating lung cancer.
Again, your thinking needs to move away from this idea of “prevention” or a “ban.” I never stated such.
We actually do ban its use in a lots of areas. In addition, it is taxed at high levels as a method of dissuasion. I don’t know the breakdown between what serves as the more effective deterrent, education or the above or combination. There is also becoming sort of less social acceptance of the behavior, which may play a role.
LIke I said, I’m all for education but not sure what that looks like or should absorb the cost. It seems sort of amorphous in application, other than another example of a lack of financial literacy.
Gambling is taxed at ordinary income rates, unlike long term capital gains. Like Stock investing, you are allowed to offset gains with losses. I don’t see a reason to tax it any differently.
I don’t see a reason to discourage adults from doing what they want with regards to legal gambling. I see little difference with some of the short term trading approaches by speculators on the boards.