2) In a purely rational way, yes. However,
a) I'm most interested in discussing average scenarios which in this case is young people = generally mortgageless and childless, older people = generally have children and associated costs
b) It often ends up more complicated than that when you factor in social safety nets. You could very well do better by not taking a job that allows you to barely scrape by and instead take the government assistance.
c) Rationalizing away a massive decrease in standard of living for a significant number of people as, effectively, "at least they're not homeless" is one of the ways you end up with massive inequality and eventually the populism push we're seeing now leading potentially to something akin to the French Revolution.
I think we can find a better solution. This is exactly the kind of discussion that has been missing on a national level until very recently.
If they don't care then there is no problem. If they are unwilling to take paths toward self improvement maybe it's for the best to not force them to do something they don't want?
And at the risk of stating the obvious, it is in society's best interest to support families, because children are literally the next generation and everything will quickly collapse if it becomes economically untenable for most to have children. So society has to set itself up in a way that promotes the ability for most people to have and support families.
2) It's true that supporting a family requires a higher salary, but younger people can have families, too, and in any case retraining for a job that allows you to barely scrape by is better than nothing. Better to get mostly screwed than to get completely screwed.