In 2025, writer Julia Steinberg discussed how graduates of the top universities in the USA are treating their jobs as a temporary stop rather than a career plan in one of her essays. Two years at a prestigious consulting firm would boost their resumes, after which they would work in anything but that field. In her view, the reason is that much of the office work available seems senseless to this group, while the rewards promised after decades of hard work (homeownership, financial stability, predictable career advancement, and a comfortable retirement) no longer appear at the end of the road.Those goals have been replaced by attempts to land a life-changing stroke of luck. Betting on prediction markets, trading cryptocurrencies, or selling content online has begun to seem easier and less humiliating than competing for a job that offers and promises less and less. Steinberg coined the term "Economic Nihilism" for the phenomenon: a generation that has given up on traditional ways of building wealth because it feels they are no longer worth the effort and is moving en masse toward forms of income dependent on a lucky break, hype, and openly acknowledged risk, but accompanied by the promise of a disruptive return that could help them move up in life.Steady work and patience are out. In comes the feeling that, if you have nothing to lose, the best thing to do is take a risk.The Consumer and Investment Trend Among Young AdultsThis trend can be divided into distinct data points and areas of consumer habits and investment among young people.The first is gambling. A TransUnion survey conducted in the second half of 2025 found that 42% of Millenials and 34% of Gen Z regularly bet on sports, while monthly debt payments among these groups rose by 20% and 27%, respectively, which is well above how much inflation and the minimum wage rose in that same period. The National Bureau of Economic Research reported in 2024 that average household spending on gambling rose by US$ 1,100 per year in US states where online sports betting had been legalized. Those same families also saw a 14% decline in net investment. Money that once went into stocks or investment funds began flowing into bets instead, with higher bankruptcy risks concentrated among people under 40.In Brazil, the Secretariat of Prizes and Betting reported that 17 million Brazilians used regulated platforms in the first half of 2025. Nearly half were 30 or younger, and 72% were under 40. In six months, betting companies recorded R$ 17.4 billion in gross gaming revenue, equivalent to an average loss of R$ 983 (roughly US$195) per active bettor during the period.The Brazilian Investor X-Ray report, released by Anbima in partnership with Datafolha, found that 20% of bettors view betting platforms as a form of investment. Their average age was 35. Among them, 39% said they bet to get money quickly in times of need, while 37% were seeking to win large sums. In another study, Anbima identified a group of bettors for whom luck seems like a real possibility of changing their lives.For some bettors, betting occupies the space once held by savings accounts or long-term investments but promises immediate transformation, while other options, such as building up reserves, seem too slow, and earned income offers no prospect of social mobility. The odds remain stacked against the user, but the way they perceive risk seems acceptable compared with the alternatives.Sports betting became a public health issue after being treated as a path to financial progress by a significant portion of the Brazilian population and was banned in Brazil through a Provisional Measure signed in September 2026.The second area is the stock market. Podcast host Demetri Kofinas uses the term "financial nihilism" to describe young investors who see extreme risk as a more realistic path to financial progress than traditional savings. In 2025, FINRA (the agency that regulates brokerages in the United States) reported that 62% of investors under 35 believed they needed to take major risks to achieve their goals. Among them, 29% had already bought meme stocks, and 22% had invested borrowed money. According to insurer Northwestern Mutual, 80% of Generation Z and 75% of Millenials said they were drawn to speculative investments because they felt financially behind their expectations.In 2025, an academic paper titled "The Inflation Gamble" showed that demand for volatile stocks (which rarely deliver above-average gains but sometimes do) increases with the cost of living. Economic theory would suggest the opposite: financial uncertainty should drive investors away from higher-risk assets. Instead, younger generations have become more motivated, or easier to persuade, to try risky market trades.Finally, and most importantly for our topic of debate today, there is the market for small indulgences, or the little treat economy. People allow themselves to buy a small treat at least once a month, and 52% of this group limit their spending to US$ 25 per purchase. As with the stock market, one figure contradicts the expectations regarding financial downturn: the Bank of America Institute reports that Gen Z's arbitrary spending continued to grow despite the growing pressure in terms of living costs, to the point it became the exception to the broader pattern of an economy divided between those who spend more and those who spend less depending on their income.One of the clearest examples was the Labubu doll craze. In 2025, Labubu sales rose 440% in the first half of 2025, with more than 100 million units sold. The reason? Resale and the promise of profit. Rare versions of Labubu were resold for as much as 2,000% of their retail price between 2024 and 2025.The Labubu phenomenon and Gen Z's consumer patterns are best explained by a term coined by economist Kyla Scanlon in 2022: Vibecession. It describes a period when macroeconomic data appeared strong, with low unemployment and a growing GDP, but the population at large felt as though it was living through a real recession. It is the feeling and experience of a recession, even when economic reality does not look like one.Scanlon's thesis is that sentiment can also function as an economic indicator. If enough people believe the economy is in bad shape and change their spending and investment behavior accordingly, collective belief can trigger the recession people feared in a self-fulfilling prophecy. Scanlon herself said in April 2025 that the United States was no longer in a Vibecession because the economic data had caught up with the pessimism that already existed, with a stagnant labor market and persistent inflation.Trading Card Games and Economic NihilismOver the past six years, Trading Card Games and collectible cards have entered the mainstream spotlight as a source of investment, to the point that Japan has considered regulating the niche. Among the arguments cited was the possibility of criminals using collectible cards to launder money, as well as the fact that the gaming market has ceased to be a lighthearted hobby and come to be seen as a genuine financial asset. Japan's ruling party is treating this issue with the seriousness it deserves, and it acknowledges that regulating it could affect their economy and tourism.However, TCGs combine the main attractions scattered across the other areas of consumer habits and investment among young adults. The unpredictability of the outcome found in sports betting shows up whenever you buy a TCG pack and in each match you play. The promise of major returns and the gamified interface of the stock market are noticeable also when you buy and resell singles, as well as in promises of disruptive returns fueled by an ad-intensive culture that already floods social media. And the small indulgence and sense of self-care associated with little gifts also carry the possibility of a major financial return. No one expects their afternoon coffee to suddenly go up in value and bring you financial return, but that pack at the local store might, who knows, return ten times what it cost.The product design, the way it is marketed, and even how much it costs at the local store also affect how risky it seems. People divide money into separate mental compartments and tolerate risk differently depending on which compartment they're dealing with. Bills are fiercely protected, and ideally a person will not dip into bill money to take a risk on betting platforms. Many are often more flexible and tolerant when they lose money labeled as arbitrary spending or entertainment, even when the activity it funds carries similarly unpredictable structural risks.An $8 booster falls into the second category. The low price and the social framing of the purchase ("I'll treat myself") have already overcome caution before the purchase is made, even though opening the pack exposes the consumer to risk and unpredictability.Leon Y. Xiao published a study of 1,961 TCG players and found a correlation between spending on physical card packs and pathological gambling scores, with a coefficient of 0.15. It is not particularly strong (loot boxes have an average coefficient of 0,30) but it is not insignificant. The random reward systems for packs, which lead people to open another after the first in the hope that the next will give them the card they want or financial return, use the same variable-ratio reinforcement schedules found in slot machines. The near-win effect activates the reward circuits in your brain much in the same way as a real win when a card comes close enough but is not the ideal "hit."Understanding this system requires going back to B.F. Skinner's behaviorism. This American psychologist and philosopher demonstrated how variable reward schedules create repetitive behavior more frequently than predictable rewards. TCGs, which are at their greatest financial appeal today, are built on unpredictability and do not differ that much from loot boxes and gachas, which Skinner scholars identify as dangerously similar to slot machines. Their mechanisms are designed to trigger anticipation, dopamine release, and engagement loops.No one opens a pack with market trends and opening probabilities in mind, even though those numbers exist and are publicly disclosed by manufacturers. People open boosters with a friend, influencer, or player who paid $10 and pulled a card worth $100 in mind. Unlike before, nowadays the promise of high returns from TCGs is constantly echoed across social media.This image is also effective because a secondary market worth billions operates with prices that can be tracked with a single search. The TCG market is valued at around US$ 7.51 billion. Yet a substantial part of collectible card prices is driven by hype and subjective value, leaving the entire sector exposed to a speculative bubble. Ironically, both factors coexist without canceling each other out and even reinforce one another: the more high-value cards are opened on camera and major influencers invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in pieces of colored cardboard, the more valuable a collectible card becomes in the eyes of everyone watching, and the more attractive and seductive the idea of opening packs in search of a big hit becomes as well.The same market that motivates people to open packs and makes this a valid investment is sustained by the very people who promote it and move millions of dollars around the world. On one hand, if the person in front of the camera pulled a major treasure, a potential buyer may presume that their own luck is just as good. On the other, the more high-profile figures enter the space and invest large sums in the market, the safer it seems to invest in card games, regardless of the many risks.The “variable” layer of a card game goes beyond the product itself and extends to the very dynamics of the game. Take a game of Magic: The Gathering, for example: players shuffle their 60-card decks, draw 7 cards without knowing what they will get, decide whether to keep their hand or try again without any additional information, and play the game. The outcome remains uncertain until the final turn. The game does not reward you more or less for opening hundreds of packs or buying the entire deck, card by card, on a marketplace, by the way.This brings us to the final element that makes card games more appealing and their financial shelf-life more reliable than, for example, Labubus: the element of play and escapism. Unlike the inherent "feel-good" consumerism in little treats (which shifts the desire for status and achievement toward a smaller, more accessible replacement good), escapism is about disconnecting from reality through an automatic response (usually created by the psychological system) when a real-life demand exceeds one’s perceived ability to cope with it.Individuals use escapism as their main coping strategy are more vulnerable to developing some form of dependency. Playing a card game for fifty minutes isn't scientifically proven to be connected to dependency or addiction. There is not enough research based on large samples to confirm or refute this possibility, and this is another problem in the many gray areas of this industry: without research, there are no results. Without results, there is no evidence. Without evidence, the niche becomes more vulnerable to populist rhetoric as more attention is shifted to the “investment” side of collectible cards.What TCGs offer, however, is a refuge where, during a tournament or a few online games, your entire attention is directed toward solving a closed, playful and entertaining problem with a clear set of rules that have nothing to do with real-life concerns such as rent, salary, bills or expectations for the future.This is not a flaw, nor is it an argument for demonizing card games or equating them with other high-risk schemes. Bringing all the elements above together ultimately means looking at a generation that entered adulthood psychologically vulnerable and predisposed to treating financial risk as the most reasonable path forward because the traditional route to progress no longer works. The younger generations are searching for a way to get ahead when simply studying and trying to hold on to a good job in order to achieve a stable, peaceful life no longer seems like a tangible possibility for most.Collectible cards and TCGs are merely the latest craze in financial hedges, but one that has brought together small indulgences, promises of financial returns and compulsive behaviors driven by unpredictability all at once, mixed with a playful element that is perfectly suited to escaping a reality more difficult than the future Millennials and Gen Z expected. They are now also widely promoted as high-value products, treated almost like a secondary stock market. Few mass-market consumer products have managed to bring together so many elements of the same social problem in an object so inexpensive and so easy to buy again tomorrow.As cards receive more attention and more controversial cases emerge in the niche, it becomes increasingly likely that some countries will start talking about regulating TCGs, as Japan is doing now. This, while viable if implemented responsibly and with the goal of curbing practices that require scrutiny, would be just another band-aid to the real problem driving so many adults between the ages of 18 and 40 to accept that life is one big gamble: the uncertainty that the future can be better.That problem cannot be solved at the gaming table. Mobilization and public policy changes are needed, as is the need to nurture hope for a brighter future. Yet that same hope, which gives young people and adults the drive to try something new in their lives, can, when directed toward the wrong goal, become another force fueling unchecked escapism and financially risky behavior.This article draws on data and research from: Palladium Magazine (Julia Steinberg); TransUnion; National Bureau of Economic Research; the New York Federal Reserve Bank; FINRA; Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance; Massachusetts Securities Division; SurveyMonkey; Bank of America Institute; Forbes; Kyla Scanlon; Richard Thaler; Leon Y. Xiao and team (Psychology of Addictive Behaviors); B.F. Skinner; Aldao, Nolen-Hoeksema and Schweizer (2010); Kirby and Petry (2014); Hughes (2019, TCGplayer data); Trading Card Index; and earlier articles: Card Games as Investment: A Reflection of Generations in Crisis and Card Games, Addiction, and Regulation: How much sense does it make?.
Reactions
0
0 Comments
Be the first to comment
Nothing here yet.