In my relatively wealthy EU country there are two types of non upper class young men: those who are set to receive a relatively large inheritance and those who don't.
People in the second group have to work much harder than those in the first group to achieve well-being, even if they are professionally successful. People in the first group can afford to underachieve, since they will progressively become richer than those in the second group anyway.
The way I see it there is not simply a low and middle class, there is a multitude of subclasses among them that are mostly defined by inheritance. Partly as a result of it, we now live in awkward economic bubbles that don't mate with each other.
I've always wondered about the inheritance argument. People tend to live a long time now, so that inheritance may come in your sixties or even seventies. The money will provide security in old age, but does not affect the decades when the parents are still alive (apart from the fact that you can make less, because you don't have to save for the old age).
BTW I wonder if financial sector will start offering loans against expected inheritance. They would solve this problem.
> And a lot did use to be expected. There were social norms to work hard, provide, take care of loved ones, and so on. Today, these norms have largely dissolved. Young men have responded accordingly.
I mostly agree, but I think there are more causes than what is implied by OP.
My suspicion is that working hard is still a social norm, but the way wealth has been distributed over the previous decades no longer lets workers climb the social ladder simply by working hard.
I think birth rates are low because having kids is a luxury, particularly when you have no safety net. Certain low/middle subclasses (for instance, those who inherit several properties) tend to have kids eventually, but they increasingly have them at an advanced age (35+).
Some countries economies -mine, at the very least- have been disfigured to the point where there really isn't a clear motivation to have kids unless you are rich.
In Australia with a strong safety net for single parents its very adverse consequences, there's quite a lot of children with parents on welfare, then 'middle classes' are opting out or having less and later, while upper middle and above still having them though trend is above 30 even to early 40s for women.
If having children, and time, is a big reward in life many of those who work harder and getting a worse deal than those who didn't bother.
People in the second group have to work much harder than those in the first group to achieve well-being, even if they are professionally successful. People in the first group can afford to underachieve, since they will progressively become richer than those in the second group anyway.
The way I see it there is not simply a low and middle class, there is a multitude of subclasses among them that are mostly defined by inheritance. Partly as a result of it, we now live in awkward economic bubbles that don't mate with each other.