I live in Norway, so it isn't comparable, but if I do it anyway, then absolutely. Not 100k sitting in the bank of course, but mostly taking the market value of their house - their debt. Heck, I'd probably go as far as to say at least 1 in 3.

1. Unexpected expenses could ruin you without savings.

2. Financial planning allows you greater options through life and especially for retirement.

3. Money makes money.  Saving and investing are the equivalent of having a second job you don't have to work at, but get the money.

Yes, I am aware.  That said, if someone has less than $1000 for monthly expenditures, what odds are there that they have $100,000+ in the market?  The kind of mindset that lives so close month to month isn't very likely to be planning for years or decades down the road.  It can happen, but being cash poor is a risky proposition.  Markets are far better strategy for long term planning, but the volatility isn't something you want to worry about paying regular bills.

I'd advise anyone to have at least two months worth of bills easily accessible (for vast majority this would be in excess of $1000) in the event they should suddenly become unemployed.  Putting money in and taking it out of your investment portfolio can lead to a lot of anxiety if the timing is bad.  Right now we've had eight years of a bull market, but it could easily correct by 2020 seeing people have less then than they do now. 

So, with 2% inflation... 96k equivalent dollars. After 45 years of continuous saving and waiting. Yeah... not impressed. I'd like a house before I enter retirement, and 96k will get you a shack, at best.

Old man wants kids to get off his lawn? Big surprise.

Signed, a Millennial Homeowner.

lel, in my home, there are avocados in the soil, that fell from our trees... I dont like it that much. They even go spoiled because no one on the hoouse wants to eat them for several days.

Home prices relative to incomes were low in the 1980s and the 1990s. Home prices boomed in the 2000s while incomes remained flat. Homes were cheap in the wake of the 2008 housing crash, but unemployment also went to double digits which made it hard for established millennials to buy homes. Home prices have essentially recovered now, and while jobs are easy to come by in 2018, wages are still low.

Those are the macro reasons why millennials can't afford houses when their parents could. It's not click-baity or sexy, but it is the truth.

https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/08/daily-chart-20

Homes in metropolitan areas with tens of millions of immigrations have rising prices, but rural America is very affordable.

Millennials also do not start working at 16 or 18 like most of their parents did, so they delay their income too much into the later parts of life.

Rural America also isn't where the jobs are, though. By and large, anyway. Some decent income jobs can be found away from major metros, but some millennials own houses too.

I suppose a bunch of millennials could afford homes if they worked in the city and commuted from beyond the suburbs. But this isn't really empirically analogous to what our parents experienced. Not making a value judgement here on who "had it better", it just is what it is. If you want an explanation as to why millennials don't buy houses, it's wages, median home prices, the great recession, and probably that fewer of them want homes. We're also not having kids, so I hear.

It's all relative. Wages flat for 30 years means that 10% saved 30 years ago stretches volumes in comparison to today. I can't complain, but I'm not suffering. Were I making an average salary I'd feel pretty awful about my living situation.