Why Striving May No Longer Pay Off for Gen Z: A Rational, Data‑Driven Perspective

Decision Model of Striving vs. Not Striving

Define a binary strategy variable S ∈{0,1} where S=1 denotes “striving” and S=0 denotes “not striving”. The expected utility of striving is U_strive = p_success * B_success – C_strive where p_success is the probability that effort leads to upward mobility or goal achievement, B_success is the benefit (material reward + social recognition) obtained on success, and C_strive is the total cost (time, effort, psychological strain, opportunity cost). The expected utility of not striving is the baseline utility of maintaining the current low‑effort lifestyle: U_no_strive = B_baseline A rational agent chooses the strategy with the higher expected utility.

Generational Parameter Shifts

Empirical observations suggest that the parameters differ markedly between the “growth window” of the 1980‑2010 period and the 2020s.

1980‑2010 (born 1960‑1980): high economic growth, labor shortage, large upward‑mobility probability, strong material and social rewards, relatively modest competition and cost.

2020s (born 2000‑2010): stagnating growth, degree devaluation, massive competition for limited educational slots, scarce labor demand, narrower mobility gaps, and sharply increased costs (sleep loss, health, social life, childhood experiences).

Illustrative nondimensional values (relative ratios) are:

Probability of success ( p_success ) : 0.4–0.6 in the 1980s–2000s, 0.1–0.2 in the 2020s.

Benefit magnitude ( B_success ) : 100 (earlier era) vs. 40 (2020s).

Cost magnitude ( C_strive ) : 10 (earlier era) vs. 35 (2020s).

Baseline utility ( B_baseline ) : 5 (earlier era) vs. 20 (2020s).

Plugging these illustrative numbers into the utility formulas shows that striving dominates in the earlier era ( U_strive ≫ U_no_strive), whereas in the 2020s the net utility of striving can become lower than the baseline, making “not striving” the rational choice.

Bayesian Updating of Expectations

Individuals observe outcomes of earlier cohorts (parents, seniors, peers). Each observation updates their belief about p_success via Bayesian inference. As the observed proportion of successful high‑effort cases declines, the posterior estimate of p_success shifts downward, reducing U_strive.

Formally, let Prior(p_success) be the initial belief and let D be the set of observed outcomes (successes and failures). The posterior is

p_success_post ∝ Likelihood(D | p_success) × Prior(p_success)

When the likelihood reflects a low success rate, the posterior mean drops, leading agents to favor S=0.

Interpretation

The shift from “hard work changes destiny” to “anti‑striving” is not a moral judgment but a rational adaptation to updated parameters and posterior beliefs. Different generations face distinct parameter environments, so optimal strategies differ without implying laziness or superiority.