Listen to the full podcast, here.
Key Points
- A significant generational divide existed in the belief in the American dream, with individuals under 50 being far more skeptical than those over 50.
- This skepticism was argued to be rooted in the negative economic experiences of younger generations, including the 2008 housing crisis and the post-COVID K-shaped economy, which hindered their ability to build wealth and acquire assets like homes.
- A central argument was that when people did not own assets or have a stake in the capitalist system, they were not incentivized to care about policies that might negatively affect real estate or the stock market.
- John and Sam noted a corresponding rise in positive views of socialism among younger Americans, who saw it as a potential alternative to a system they felt was not working for them.
- They contrasted this domestic disillusionment with the enduring appeal of the American dream for immigrants, for whom the opportunity for economic mobility in the U.S., however difficult, was still far greater than in their home countries.
- Social media was identified as a potential factor in skewing perceptions of wealth and success, making the American dream seem even more unattainable for many.
John Norris (00:31):
Well, hello again, everybody. This is John Norris with Trading Perspectives. As always, we have our good friend, Sam Clement. Sam, say hello.
Sam Clement (00:36):
Hi, John. How are you doing?
John Norris (00:37):
Sam, I’m doing okay, and I hope you’re doing okay.
Sam Clement (00:39):
I’m doing great.
John Norris (00:41):
You know who I don’t think is doing okay?
Sam Clement (00:44):
I’ve got a few guesses.
John Norris (00:44):
Well, I’m thinking really recently the head of the Republican Party’s is probably not doing so great. And guys, before you think we’re going to get too political on this, this is really going to be more of a commentary or discussion about just what the election results actually mean for society as a whole, as opposed to anything regarding any one of the two primary political parties. And also, I’ve got to say, anything that we say here today is our opinion only—mine and Sam’s—and not necessarily those of Oakworth Capital Bank, any of its associates, shareholders, anything like that. Fair enough, Sam?
Sam Clement (01:16):
Fair enough.
John Norris (01:17):
Alright. Unless you just really don’t follow American news or American politics, everyone by now probably knows that recently in New York City a gentleman by the name of Zohran Momdani won the mayoral election and will become the next mayor. And even more than that, you saw just huge victories for the Democrat Party in races across the country. I can’t really think of too many bright spots for the Republicans on that election day.
So really the question is: what in the world does this mean for the population as a whole? But more importantly, I wanted to focus in a little bit more on the election in New York, because so many people up there are voting completely differently. When you consider Mr. Momdani’s primary economic platform, it’s unlike anything that I think we’ve seen in a major election in the United States—at least in my lifetime—where the primary candidate, the one that won, is talking in a lot of ways about government taking over the means of production in some areas, even more so than normal. Things about services that for once you had to pay for—things like childcare—and also government-run grocery stores and buses and just a whole lot of free stuff, rent controls, all of that.
(02:36):
And the word socialism has been bandied about quite a bit here. That really makes one wonder whether or not—gosh, dare I say—does the American population still believe in the so-called American dream? I would say the underpinnings of the American dream were capitalism to a degree (a belief that you get to keep what you earn) and libertarianism to a degree (where you kind of left other people alone and they left you alone by and large and in large part). Now obviously that’s not necessarily the way it’s always been, but for the most part the American dream is: if I work hard, I can reap what I sow, and I can enjoy the fruits of my labor.
And right now, taking a look at the elections that have happened, taking a look at some of the promises a lot of politicians are throwing out there, I’m kind of wondering: do people still believe in the American dream?
Sam Clement (03:32):
I think in general people do, but we’ve talked about this for years—this trend. I mean, we’ve talked about it during the first Trump presidency, and it seems like a lot of these things are the same sentiment just swinging to both sides. The pendulum’s swinging both ways. And it’s—we’ve talked about it with the stock market—this K-shaped economy: some people doing really well, other people doing really poorly and really watching things drift away from them—these dreams that they thought they could have. Other people have done fantastically well—people that hold assets.
And so this isn’t new. This isn’t something going on in the city of New York alone. It’s a trend that has gone on, I’d say, pre-COVID but sped up significantly since COVID. I think that’s the trend that’s going to continue. I don’t think it stops with a far-left candidate in a New York City mayoral election. It could be a far-right candidate in another election somewhere. I just think when you get these inflationary environments, you have people that do really well with that and you have people that don’t—and it leads to people maybe giving up on the American dream.
John Norris (04:46):
Well, to that point, Pew Research last year—in July 2024—put out a paper based on some research they had done. And granted, Pew Research, a lot of people might argue it’s a little bit right of center, and I would say it probably is, but it’s not crazy or anything like that. They present things fairly—maybe a little bit more business-leaning than some other think tanks. But even so, Pew Research in July of last year put out a report, an article, what have you, about whether or not the American dream is still alive and well in the United States.
According to them, in total, 53% of respondents said the American dream was alive and well, and 6% said that it never existed. So: 53% alive and well; 6% said never existed—which obviously means the remainder think it’s not alive and well, but did exist at one point.
(05:43):
Right? Alright. Of the 18 to 29 group—the youngest people, the people that are supposed to be positive (“we’re going to set the world on fire, we’re going to bow and prance around”—I don’t know exactly what that means, but I heard someone say that once; there you have it)—only 39% of respondents in this age demographic said the American dream is alive and well. Nine percent said that it never existed.
Not surprisingly, this changes as it goes up each decade. Ages 30 to 49—43% said the American dream is alive and well, so still kind of low.
(06:23):
So people under the age of 50, by and large—I’m going to round it—roughly 40% of people under the age of 50 think the American dream is alive and well. Whereas all of a sudden, us old farts, Sam—over the age of 50—50 to 64: 61% of respondents said the American dream is alive and well. And those people that have one foot in, one foot out—65 plus—68% of those people said the American dream is alive and well.
So clearly, according to Pew Research data last year, there are some generational differences here—the generational differences meaning the American dream is “dead” for younger people while still “alive” for older people.
Sam Clement (07:06):
Well, my thought reading this—and it’s a pretty direct trend; the numbers for “the American dream alive and well” go directly up the older you get, and vice versa—is that I think less about the age groups and more about the events that happened in pivotal years, especially early in careers.
John Norris (07:31):
For these people. I certainly hope you’re going to tell me about some of ’em.
Sam Clement (07:33):
Well, I think for the first one—18 to 29—a lot of those people…
(07:38):
And again, to my point about what’s happened in this post-COVID environment: we saw this excess hiring and then a slowdown in hiring at a time AI is coming around; the stock market’s booming. These 18-to-29-year-olds typically don’t hold a lot of assets, and it’s getting harder now to grow in your career.
And so when we’ve talked about the K-shaped economy, it’s that group that’s in that next stage above them that has really captured a lot of this growth in asset prices and has had the tailwind—where the 18 to 29 group, COVID has largely been a headwind for a lot of them.
John Norris (08:16):
Well, and then you had the people 30 to 49 who—heck—were coming around right when the housing bubble broke.
Sam Clement (08:22):
That was going to be my point with that group: the housing bubble, the Great Recession, the bailouts of the banks, and people who did well or were okay after the fact, while a lot of people struggled…
John Norris (08:35):
So basically, you could say things have not been truly—what, I guess—normal since we went through the housing crisis.
Sam Clement (08:43):
If you are in the age group where you saw the banks get bailed out and people that took excessive risk escape with not a lot of pain—and you struggled to find a job and maybe lost money in your 401(k) and what have you—
John Norris (09:01):
Your house was foreclosed on, and these other people still get to pocket a lot—
Sam Clement (09:04):
Yes. Those events matter. When they happened in your life determines how pivotal they remain for the rest of your life. And so I read this as less of an indictment on people age 18 to 29 and 30 to 49. To me, it perfectly reflects the specific events that happened to these age brackets.
John Norris (09:27):
Their life experiences are telling them this…
(09:30):
Based on what they’ve seen and based on the results. That white picket fence and the two-and-a-half kids and having a steak on the weekend—that type of stuff seems like pie-in-the-sky for a lot of people. Because now, according to the National Association of Home Builders—and really most real estate indices—housing affordability in the United States is next to nothing. It’s horrible. Absolutely awful.
I’ve read recently (and forget the source, but several places—please, by all means, Google it) that the median age of first-time home buyers now is like 40. It’s like 40. And that’s not that old, but it sure is old to start building your equity in your first house.
John Norris (10:16):
That’s pretty old. I think it was closer to 30 when I bought my first house. Granted, that was forever ago. But even so, that’s pushing it, man.
Sam Clement (10:26):
Well, you’ve got to think: if you’re in the 50 to 64 or 65-plus group and you bought a home 30, 40 years ago—and I get that maybe the compounded growth rate’s not amazing—but you bought these houses for $50,000 or $100,000, and they’re worth a million to $2 million plus. Who doesn’t like that? How is it—? I mean, those people, it’s probably hard to say the American dream isn’t alive and well, right? You bought a home at a much more affordable time, even given interest rates. People talk about 8 to 12% mortgages. Whatever. They were still more affordable based on average incomes back then.
And so for those people, it is alive and well. For people 18 to 29, post-COVID, if you didn’t buy a house pre-COVID, it has become significantly harder, if not—
John Norris (11:13):
Impossible. It’s almost a pipe dream right now.
Sam Clement (11:16):
And for several reasons: because people aren’t selling, so there’s no inventory; people are bidding it up; and your income versus the cost is just outlandish.
John Norris (11:24):
And let’s face it—according to a lot of what I’ve read—home builders aren’t building those small detached single-family starter homes: two-bedroom, one-and-a-half bath, traditional American starter homes. There’s not a ton of money in those things for a home builder, so you’re not seeing as many of them going up.
Sam Clement (11:45):
So if I’m sitting here saying, I haven’t been able to afford a house and I don’t see a world where I can right now; I haven’t been able to save up a lot of assets; and we’ve had one of the biggest bull markets for years—and I haven’t really participated in it all that much—I don’t blame people who feel like this system isn’t working for them. Whether it’s right or wrong, it’s hard to not understand why someone would want to shake things up.
I get the lack of maybe economic understanding with certain policies, but the sentiment behind why people feel this way does have logical reasons.
John Norris (12:27):
Oh, I agree completely. A lot of people benefited; 401(k) balances are up; and some people would say, “You ought to be happy about that.” But when you look at these stark differences in these ages here—people over the age of 50, by and large: “Hey, American dream’s alive and well.” Under the age of 50: forget about it.
And as you mentioned, they’ve been through some of the worst experiences in the U.S. economy—really since the Great Depression in a lot of ways. They’re finding it hard to build that nest egg, to build up their balances, to build their balance sheet. Whereas other people—I mean, myself included—bought the house before the financial crisis, had the 401(k) going before all the worst-case scenarios. We’ve benefited somewhat—maybe not as much as I would like—but even so, we’ve benefited.
Whereas people my kids’ age—and you’re a little older than my kids but not by much—are sitting there going, “How in the hell am I ever going to be able to afford a house on Cherokee Road?”
(13:29):
That just seems so unattainable to me right now. And all that. I get why people are saying, “It’s not really working so much this way.”
Going to the New York example: all the rent freezing that Momdani is promising—what do renters care? They don’t own the buildings. If I’m renting from some guy that keeps jacking up the rate, and a politician says, “Hey, your rent’s frozen for a couple of years,” that sounds great to me. And I vote.
Of course, I’m not thinking long term about the lack of supply and new units not going up, or that the landlord’s not going to make any improvements on the property. I don’t care because my rent’s frozen for a couple of years, and I wasn’t planning on living there any longer than two years anyway.
Sam Clement (14:21):
And I’ll take it a step further: even if you do understand the issues that are coming down the road—what do I care? I’m not invested in the system. I don’t own real estate, I don’t own stocks. If you have no skin in the game, you don’t care.
John Norris (14:35):
If I’m not an owner, I don’t care.
Sam Clement (14:37):
Right. And if you’re not an owner, capitalism—the system—and the buy-in involves being able to grow your assets. It’s a pivotal part of it. And if you’re completely removed from that system, who cares? If you say, “This is bad for the stock market,” who cares? “Bad for real estate?” Who cares?
John Norris (14:57):
“This is bad for the bodega owners.” Who cares?
Sam Clement (15:00):
Yeah. If you have no skin in the game about anything, you’re not incentivized to care.
John Norris (15:07):
If I rent, I work nine to five, I don’t see a lot of upward mobility because boomers aren’t getting out of the way, and the rent just keeps going up; my utility bill keeps going up; I don’t see any light at the end of the tunnel—why do I care if some developer makes their money back?
Speaker 3 (15:24):
Yeah.
John Norris (15:24):
Why do I care if the landlord gets their check on time? Why do I care if new supply is going up or not? Because you know something—my rent’s frozen.
(15:34):
And I was moving in a couple years anyway. In terms of grocery stores—so what? I can’t afford the luxury stuff. I want a decent head of lettuce every now and again. Now what do I care?
And that’s the whole thing. The truth is—I’ve said it several times—“What do I care?” And I think that’s where we’re getting with this type of stuff, where so few people believe in the American dream that they’re like, “What do I care about capitalism when capitalism is not working for me? And by the way, I don’t envision it ever working for me.”
(16:07):
And so not surprisingly, as a result, you kind of take a look at: how are young people feeling about capitalism in general? And according to the Cato Institute—another kind of more libertarian think tank—they did some research and reported it as of May 2025. All told, of all the Americans they surveyed (I forget the exact sample), 43% had a positive view of socialism; 14% had a positive view of communism.
Now okay—that’s all age groups. But in the 18 to 29 group, Sam—in the 18 to 29 group—62% had a positive view of socialism. And while 14% overall had a positive view of communism, in the 18 to 29 group, 34% had a positive opinion of communism. And these are all significantly higher than the other age groups.
And it’s not clear what definition of “socialism” was being used by Cato. It could be maybe they were just thinking of expanded social safety nets or entitlement programs. But regardless—as opposed to capitalism—socialism and communism to our younger generation don’t seem like a bad idea.
(17:44):
And it goes to what you were talking about: because a lot of these people have not bought into the American dream, don’t believe in the American dream (as we’ve seen from Pew Research), and as a result, they’re looking for an alternative—and socialism seems to be winning out.
Now, with that being said: if so many Americans—particularly younger Americans—don’t believe in the American dream, why does it seem so many non-Americans still believe in it? And despite what’s going on with recent immigration changes and what the President is currently trying to do, why does it seem like so many people are still trying to get here to have a slice of that American dream?
Sam Clement (18:27):
Well, I think it starts with the fact that feelings about the American dream are relative. If you’re coming from a place that’s much worse, even the lower rungs of the U.S. American dream are much better off than where a lot of people are coming from.
And so I think you have to understand that part of it. It’s: “Hey, even in the lower class, I’m better off here than I was.” And then there’s this almost lottery-ticket option to the upside if I’m very successful. Because I do think while it’s hard to move up those quartiles, it is possible, and people still believe in that—especially coming from places where things are so much worse off, where it is impossible—even in some of these countries—to move up the social ladder.
John Norris (19:14):
And that’s what I was going to mention if you hadn’t said it. While it is still difficult in the United States—even if younger people have soured on it somewhat—the way the laws are set up, the way the system is devised, it’s still possible. I’m not going to say it’s easy. It’s difficult. It’s damn difficult. It’s always been difficult, but I’d say even more difficult now.
Truthfully, I’m not trying to be someone that says, “Oh, kids these days.” It is more difficult now than it was. It wasn’t easy when I was coming along—trust me. I didn’t have my first house until I was 30. But it does seem a little more difficult.
But I would tell you that for people who are still trying to come here—and come here in droves—while it’s difficult, it’s not impossible. It is impossible in some other places. You tell me that the American dream is possible in Yemen. You tell me the American dream is possible in Ethiopia. You tell me the American dream is possible throughout much of the world, and people would laugh at—
Speaker 3 (20:10):
You.
John Norris (20:11):
The concept of home ownership, the concept of having a couple of televisions, of having a relatively safe place to live while you’re going on vacation, having—
Sam Clement (20:19):
You can start a—
John Norris (20:19):
—start a business, go to a grocery store that has so much selection of different types of food. All this type of stuff—it’s a fantasyland.
(20:31):
What we experience is not normal. So I think that’s clearly the reason why so many non-Americans still believe in the American dream: because while difficult, it’s still possible—whereas it’s impossible in much of the rest of the world.
But if we’re thinking about it—and difficult—why does it seem, although still difficult, almost impossible for younger people? Is it because maybe the messages they’re receiving show the gap between the rich and the poor being skewed? Do people think other people have gotten wealthy by ill-gotten means, and they themselves are getting the short end of the stick from no fault of their own—they’re getting screwed? And do you think social media has anything to do with any part of this?
Sam Clement (21:19):
I think it’s all of those things we talk about. You’ll see people on social media—everyone’s out doing something or in Europe, it seems like—and “I can’t afford that.” That’s a big chunk of it.
And this plays into social media, but you see the vitriol toward founders of companies and the wealth they have for themselves—
John Norris (21:40):
Themselves, yeah.
Sam Clement (21:42):
If I created a company worth three, four trillion—I’m not talking about Amazon—but if I create a company worth four or five trillion, and I own a large chunk of that company, my wealth is going to grow. But if I own 10 to 20%, that means 80% of it’s gone to other people—and wealth has been created elsewhere for a lot of people.
And in my opinion, although I think it’s a wrong sentiment, I somewhat understand that people think someone else is getting screwed over—which is where they made their money.
John Norris (22:11):
So what you’re trying to say is—and I’m just throwing this person out as an example, but it’s a good one to express the concept—Elon Musk. Right? And let’s just take Tesla—one of his companies, obviously publicly traded. He started the company along with some others; he’s worth, what, hundreds of billions of dollars. Tesla’s worth in the trillions of dollars. So even if he’s worth $400 billion or whatever he’s worth, that means there are a couple trillion dollars elsewhere that other people have made based off a company he largely spearheaded and still runs.
So your argument is: he’s made this, he’s worth a lot of money—in absolute terms, it seems like monopoly money, seems crazy that anyone should be worth that much—but even so, a lot of other people have gotten rich because of his efforts. And as a result, he’s actually shared the wealth. And that’s kind of what capitalism is all about.
When you’re taking a look at an example like that—and what I’m taking a look at—I’m a little bit more granular, going: people see that. They hear billionaires talk and all this talk about billionaires. But I do also think there’s an element of just good old-fashioned social media, where people get online and—like you mentioned—everyone’s going to Europe. It’s like: why is everyone else’s life so much better than mine?
(23:35):
“How come they get to go out to dinner as frequently as they do?” “Why are all these other people living this charmed life while I’m sitting back observing theirs?”
And so I think that really is skewing a lot of it. People see other people achieve what might be considered the American dream, and their lives are nowhere near that. And they just put the gap between themselves and the people they follow on social media, and it seems insurmountable—not really understanding that what they’re seeing with influencers who have one million followers (hell, even the ones with 200,000 or 50,000 followers)—those are by far the exceptions, rather than the rule. The vast majority of Americans are not living those lifestyles.
So we take a look at that—social media does play a part in why folks don’t believe in the American dream to the degree they used to.
So one last question—then we’ve got to wrap it up; we’ve already gone on a little bit: What is the likelihood—particularly in New York—that Mr. Momdani’s grand economic pronouncements are going to produce the results he has promised?
Sam Clement (24:48):
I think it’s pretty close to zero. I won’t say zero, but I’ll say pretty close to zero. And I think part of it—just back out—it’s not even about his policies. It’s about the power that this office holds. It seems like we have accepted that the New York mayor is this almighty and powerful person, whereas the governor has come in and already stated, “He promised these things—we can’t do it.” It kind of shuts this down, right?
John Norris (25:14):
Well, I mean, we will see what Albany has to say, but if Albany gives a thumbs-up—and they’re going to be in a political quandary here—but I would say the likelihood of government’s greater involvement delivering the results that Momdani has promised? I’d say—I’m going to take a Trading Perspectives view here—I think it’s absolutely close to 100%. Okay, wow. I’m going to say it’s absolutely—
Sam Clement (25:36):
You think he gets the free buses?
John Norris (25:38):
Well, I’m going to say he’s going to get the free buses. People are going to love that. I’m going to say the rent control—for a time—people are going to love that. And for the person that voted for him for those things, they’re going to love that.
Never mind the fact that they’re not going to be able to pay for all this, and five years down the road, it creates far bigger problems. But in the short term, it’s going to work out pretty well for those people that wanted it.
The money’s just not going to—money’s going to dry up. And the reason for that is quite simple: if you put a price ceiling on anything—if you put a price ceiling on anything—you’ll ultimately end up with a shortage, according to Econ 101.
Sam Clement (26:16):
If the clearing price is above—
John Norris (26:18):
If the clearing price is above where the ceiling is, you’ll end up with a shortage because the demand will be far greater than the supply being offered at the ceiling price. Right? So if you set the ceiling price at zero—set the ceiling price at zero—how much demand is there going to be? As long as people value the service at even one penny—
Sam Clement (26:41):
It’s not going to be good.
John Norris (26:42):
No. People will demand a lot of it, but the supply of it isn’t going to be able to keep up with the demand.
(26:47):
So as a result, there’s going to be a shortage of everything. And we’ve seen this before in other socialist countries. When you put a ceiling—when you make everything free—that’s essentially a price ceiling. And there’s a shortage. Absolute shortage.
And so in the short term—until demand fully swamps supply—guess what? People are going to love it for the first 18 months, 24 months. They’ll think it’s swell.
And then—when the super doesn’t get around to fixing the leak quite as rapidly; when you can’t find the landlord to fix the hole in the roof; when there are fewer buses because they break down and you can’t replace them—all of a sudden that’s when problems start happening, and people aren’t going to like it terribly much.
But it’s not going to happen next year. It’s not going to happen the year after that. It’s going to take a couple of years.
So I might be Trading Perspectives with you on that, I think.
Sam Clement (27:44):
I guess we’ll wait and see.
John Norris (27:45):
We’ll wait and see, guys. Alright, thank you all so much for listening. We always love to hear from you. Also, if you have any comments or questions, please, by all means, let us know. As always, you can drop us a line at or you can leave us a review on the podcast outlet of your choice.
Of course, if you’re interested in reading more or hearing more of what we’ve got to say or how we think, you can always go to Oakworth.com—O-A-K-W-O-R-T-H dot com. Take a look underneath the “Thought Leadership” tab and find access to all kinds of exciting information, including links to previous Trading Perspectives podcasts, links to our newsletter/blog Common Cents, as well as our quarterly analysis and all the various individual components and other pieces by our Advisory Services Group headed up by Mac Frazier, as well as stuff by our client advisors.
Said that rapidly. Sam, what else you got to say about this exciting topic?
Sam Clement (28:30):
That’s all I’ve got.
John Norris (28:30):
That’s all I’ve got today too. Y’all take care.
Please note, this podcast is for informational and educational purposes, and the commentary should not be considered or otherwise construed as an offer to buy or sell investment services or securities of any type. Any political or policy references are made solely for economic analysis and do not reflect any political position or endorsement by Oakworth Asset Management. Any individual action you might take from reading this newsletter is at your own risk. My opinion, as well as those of our Investment Committee, is subject to change without notice. The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of the rest of the associates of Oakworth Asset Management, Oakworth Capital Bank or the official position of the company itself.
Oakworth Asset Management, LLC (“OAM”) is a registered investment adviser that is owned by Oakworth Capital Bank Inc. (“OCB,” or together with OAM, “Oakworth”), Member FDIC. This podcast may describe the services of both OAM and OCB, but please note that they are two separate entities that provide different services. All investment adviser services, including investment management and financial planning, are provided by OAM. Because of the ownership relationship and possible involvement by OAM associates with OCB, there exists a conflict of interest to the extent that either party (OAM or OCB) recommends the services of the other. Data and third-party information cited are believed to be reliable but are not guaranteed for accuracy or completeness. Investments offered by Oakworth OAM are not FDIC insured, may lose value, have no bank guarantee, and are not insured by any federal or state government agency. For additional information about OAM, including its services and fees, visit adviserinfo.sec.gov.