Dave Smith is a libertarian comedian and podcaster; we share some views and differ on others. He recently sat down with Jack Neel, a highly successful YouTuber, and some of his remarks went viral. Here is the clip in question:

Dave Smith Explains Why It Feels Impossible for Young Men to Succeed in 2026

“You’ve got to kind of make $1 million a year to live kind of a middle-class lifestyle.”

(Via Jack Neel) pic.twitter.com/XNgpjClLUF

— jack neel (@jackneel) November 10, 2026

I observed Smith facing considerable pushback from a range of voices, and to a degree, that critique is warranted: broadly speaking, earning $1 million isn’t a prerequisite to enjoying a middle-class lifestyle. In my home state of Michigan, the typical household earns around $65,000, and that is generally viewed as middle income. Michigan sits around the 28th spot in terms of state income, which places it roughly in the center of the pack.

A person earning $65,000 a year should be able to purchase a home priced between $200,000 and $300,000, and indeed the typical Michigan home falls within that range. There are many states where housing is even more affordable.

Having said that, I understand where Smith is coming from. Cities offer far more economic opportunity, and it makes sense for young people to relocate there to pursue higher salaries. But housing costs in many major cities—New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C. (where I live)—are astronomical.

In addition, starting a family is expensive. Education is expensive. Childcare is expensive. These things are heavily regulated and subjected to various government constraints that push up prices; for example, D.C. has pushed for daycare workers to hold degrees in early childhood education, which reduces the available supply.

When I hear young men complain that they’re making good money but still aren’t rich enough to start families, I suspect they’re thinking about this exact mix: housing followed by education and childcare for future kids. There are places where this isn’t as pricey—or if you live near relatives who can help with babysitting. But if you’re on your own, in an expensive city, or close to one, where housing is tightly regulated and daycare consumes most of your earnings, it’s understandable how a middle-class lifestyle can feel perpetually out of reach.

We should also remember that many things that make life easier have become cheaper over time. The typical family now owns more cars than half a century ago; homes are larger on average; consumer electronics have become so affordable that even many low- to middle-income Americans own smartphones, laptops, and flat-screen televisions. It isn’t all gloom.

Yet, politicians from both parties seem inclined to lower taxes for nearly everyone except young professionals who wish to start families. Michigan’s incoming Democratic Senator-elect Abdul El-Sayed has proposed freezing property taxes for retirees but not for younger homeowners, even though retirees generally hold more wealth—and they also receive most government benefits such as Social Security and Medicare. This stance hardly reads as pro-family, and I was glad to see him challenged by Breaking Points‘ Saagar Enjeti (a commentator with whom I share some views and clash on others).

Republicans worry they fared poorly with young male voters in the recent midterms, undoing President Donald Trump’s substantial gains with this group in 2024. If I were aiming to win back family-oriented men pursuing a middle-class footing, I’d push for free-market reforms that let people keep more of their money and spend it wisely on essentials: broad-based income and property tax relief for all Americans (not just the elderly, tipped workers, or narrowly defined groups); licensing, zoning, and regulatory reform; school choice, and more.

This Week on Free Media

We tackle the Jensen Huang honeypot scandal on Freed Up! Watch and subscribe.

Worth Watching

I’ve completed the child-focused portion of the The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time remake. My impressions are mostly favorable: the game looks and sounds fantastic, and revisiting the Hyrule of my youth—fully realized and updated for 2026—is a thrill. I even welled up when Saria reappeared with her ocarina; that moment captures how deeply I love this game, and the remake stays faithful to it.

That said, my critique is that it’s too faithful. It’s nearly identical to the original in layout. It looks improved, a few mechanics are tweaked (for instance, Link can move while firing the slingshot), and the dialogue is refreshed. But the treasure-hunting spiders—part of a large optional side quest—appear in nearly the same locations as before. For example, there’s a spider at night on Lon Lon Ranch’s window in the original, and it’s there again. There are around a hundred of these, which makes me wonder if some could have been relocated to add challenge or whether a Hard Mode could offer new spider-placement puzzles.

Maybe my level of familiarity makes me somewhat unusual as a fan. If your last playthrough was a long while ago, you’ll likely enjoy the comforting sense of deja vu. But I’ve revisited this game countless times, beating it again just last month. I even watch speedruns of it while I eat lunch. What does this remake offer me beyond nostalgia?

I’m still enjoying it. I just hoped for an extra dungeon, fresh puzzles, or different spider locations—something a little more novel.