Canadians Are Doomspending — It’s Not Just a Gen Z Trend

Some kinds of purchases don’t survive contact with a budget. The late-night takeout order (placed after a trip to the grocery store). The concert ticket bought during a bad week (promising a better one ahead). The sweater you didn’t need (from a store you hadn’t planned to enter).

The internet calls this doomspending: when the future looks bleak, people stop saving for it and start buying small comforts instead. It’s a tidy theory, and a term that arrives with its conclusion already attached. There is doom. There is spending. Somewhere in the middle, presumably, a bad decision.

NerdWallet Canada wanted to know how common the behaviour actually is. In August 2026, we surveyed 1,516 Canadian adults about the non-essential things they bought in the past six months, why they spent the money rather than saving it or using it for something else, and what happened to their finances afterward.

We never used the word “doomspending” in the survey. We described the behaviour plainly and asked people whether they had done it.

Two-thirds of Canadians (66%) said they had. Three in four of them said the spending affected what they spent, saved or borrowed — equal to half of all Canadians (50%).

Two-thirds of Canadians reported making at least one purchase in the past six months that fit the survey’s description of doomspending. More than two in five Canadians (45%) did it more than once; 21% did it once.

The behaviour was most common among adults ages 18 to 34 (75%), but remained common among those ages 35 to 54 (67%).

Purchase types varied by gender. Women were more likely than men to buy clothing, accessories, beauty or personal-care products (62% versus 29%). Men were more likely to buy electronics, games or hobby-related items (41% versus 22%).

The clearest gender differences appeared in what respondents bought; the report does not make a broader gender claim about motivations or financial effects.

The two most common motivations focused on what a purchase could do in the present. More than half of doomspenders (54%) wanted a lift in their mood or a distraction from stress, while 47% wanted something enjoyable to look forward to.

The qualifying question had already established that concerns about personal finances, the economy or the future played at least some role in the purchase. In the follow-up list of motivations, 21% also selected the explicitly future-focused statement: that the future felt uncertain, making it seem more worthwhile to enjoy the money now.

Mood relief was especially common:

Anticipation was also more common among university-educated and higher-income doomspenders. Among those with a university education, 56% wanted something enjoyable to look forward to, compared to the doomspender average (47%). 53% of doomspenders in households earning at least $100,000 cited the same motivation.

Two in five doomspenders (40%) said saving the amount would not have made a meaningful difference to their financial situation.

Boomers (47%) were the most likely to give this reason.

Younger Canadians were more likely to identify a different obstacle: the distance between their savings and a major financial goal. Among doomspenders, 15% of Gen Z and 13% of millennial doomspenders said a goal felt out of reach, making saving toward it feel less worthwhile. The same was true for 8% of Gen X and 3% of boomers.

Nearly one-third of doomspenders (31%) said they were tired of continually cutting back or putting off things they wanted.

Three in four doomspenders (75%) said the spending affected their other spending, saving or borrowing. That is equivalent to half of all Canadians.

The purchases did not affect other spending, saving or borrowing for 23% of doomspenders.

Among doomspenders ages 35 to 54, 32% carried or increased a credit card, line of credit or buy-now-pay-later balance, notably more than 15% of those ages 18 to 34 and 16% of those 55 and older.

Those ages 35 to 54 were also most likely to cut necessities: 22% did so, compared with 11% of those ages 18 to 34 and 12% of those 55 and older.

This is not simply a Gen Z story. Among Gen X doomspenders, 27% carried or increased debt, compared with 25% of millennials, 16% of boomers and 11% of Gen Z. The Gen X-millennial gap was not significant; both groups were more likely than Gen Z and boomers to report this effect.

Gen X was also most likely to cut necessities: 23%, compared with 13% of millennials, 12% of Gen Z and 11% of boomers.

Doomspenders with children at home were also more likely to report debt as an effect. Twenty-eight per cent carried or increased a debt balance, compared with 19% of those without children at home.

Among doomspenders in households earning less than $50,000, 22% cut back on necessities. That rate was 12% in both higher-income brackets and 15% overall.

Higher-income doomspenders were more likely to reduce planned saving or investing. Twenty-six per cent of those in households earning at least $100,000 saved or invested less than planned, compared with 16% in both lower-income brackets.

Education showed a similar pattern: 28% of university-educated doomspenders saved or invested less than planned.

Boomers were the most likely to report no financial effect. Thirty-four per cent said the purchases did not affect their spending, saving or borrowing, compared with 23% of Gen Z, 19% of Gen X and 17% of millennials.

Doomspending suggests that a bleak future drives the behaviour. But mood relief, something to anticipate and the sense that saving a small amount would not change much were all more common than the explicitly future-focused response.

The effects were not uniform. For some Canadians, doomspending displaced another discretionary purchase; for others, it meant using savings, increasing debt or cutting necessities.