Gen Z's Mid-Life Crisis

These are not happy times in America.

Gen Z is not happy. Credit: Bing Image Creator

Now, I’m not thinking about the increasing cultural wars, the endless political bickering, the troubles in the Med-East or Ukraine, the looming threat of climate crisis, or the omnipresent campaigning for the November 2024 elections, although all those play a part. I’m talking about quantifiable data, from the latest World Happiness Report. It found that America has slipped out of the top 20 countries for the first time, falling to 23^rd – behind countries like Slovenia and the U.A.E. and barely ahead of Mexica or Uruguay.

Even worse, the fall in U.S. scores is primarily due to those under 30. They ranked 62^nd, versus Americans over 60, who ranked 10^th. A decade ago those were reversed.  Americans aged 30-44 were ranked 42nd for their age group globally, while Americans between the ages 45-59 ranked 17^th.

It’s not solely a U.S. phenomenon. Overall, young people are now the least happy, and the report comments: “This is a big change from 2006-10, when the young were happier than those in the midlife groups, and about as happy as those aged 60 and over. For the young, the happiness drop was about three-quarters of a point, and greater for females than males.”

“I have never seen such an extreme change,” John Helliwell, an economist and a co-author of the report, told The New York Times, referring to the drop in happiness among younger people. “This has all happened in the last 10 years, and it’s mainly in the English-language countries. There isn’t this drop in the world as a whole.”

Jan-Emmanuel De Neve, director of the University of Oxford’s Wellbeing Research Center and an editor of the report, said in an interview with The Washington Post that the findings are concerning “because youth well-being and mental health is highly predictive of a whole host of subjective and objective indicators of quality of life as people age and go through the course of life.”

As a result, he emphasized: “in North America, and the U.S. in particular, youth now start lower than the adults in terms of well-being. And that’s very disconcerting, because essentially it means that they’re at the level of their midlife crisis today and obviously begs the question of what’s next for them?”

Gen Z is having a mid-life crisis.

The researchers speculate that social media, political polarization, and economic inequality between generations contribute to the low scores for younger Americans. Jon Clifton, CEO of Gallup, believes: “Young people have more social interactions, but feel more lonely,” and that they aren’t as connected to their job, churches, or other institutions.

“One factor, which we’re all thinking about, is social media,” Dr. Robert Waldinger, the director of the Harvard Study of Adult Development, said in a NYT interview,. “Because there’s been some research that shows that depending on how we use social media, it lowers well-being, it increases rates of depression and anxiety, particularly among young girls and women, teenage girls.”

Others note the impact of the pandemic. Professor De Neve said: “general negative trend for youth well-being in the United States [was] exacerbated during covid, and youth in the U.S. have not recovered from the drop.” Similarly, Lorenzo Norris, an associate professor of psychiatry at George Washington University, who was not part of the World Happiness study, told NYT:

The literature is clear in practice — the effect that this had on socialization, pro-social behavior, if you will, and the ability for people to feel connected and have a community. Many of the things that would have normally taken place for people, particularly high school young adults, did not take place. And that is still occurring.

“It’s a very complex time for youth, with lots of pressures and a lot of demands for their attention,” Professor De Neve diplomatically observed.  It was not true in all countries that younger people were the unhappiest, and Professor De Neve suggests: “I think we can try and dig into why the U.S. is coming down in terms of wellbeing and mental health, but we should also try and learn from what, say, Lithuania is doing well.”

Did you ever expect Lithuania might be a role model for our young people?

Professor Helliwell told CNN that young people are reflecting what is going on around them: “Almost whatever institution you’re in, people in North America seem to be fighting over rights, responsibilities and who should be doing what to improve things and who is to blame for things not going well in the past.”

Amidst all the gloomy findings, the report did say: “The COVID crisis led to a worldwide increase in the proportion of people who have helped others in need. This increase in benevolence has been large for all generations, but especially so for those born since 1980, who are even more likely than earlier generations to help others in need.”  They may be less happy, but Gen Z and millennials aren’t less charitable.

 So there’s that.

                                                                -----------------

Honestly, if young people aren’t depressed, they’re not paying attention. Social media is dominating their lives, whether Instagram is making them feel depressed or TikTok is driving them to harmful mental health content. They can see the impacts of climate change but not any sign that their elders plan to do anything about it. Their jobs are neither satisfying nor economically viable enough to allow them to build wealth, especially when suffering from crushing student loans.  They don’t expect Social Security to help with their retirement, whenever that may be and whatever that might look like. They have no reason to think that the largely geriatric politicians understand them or their needs.

 And when it comes to health care, they can see the attacks on women’s health, the inadequate support for mental health, and the gap in technology versus in the rest of their lives.

 They have every reason not to be happy. 

 The thing about mid-life crises is that they’re supposed to happen, you know, mid-life. Youth is supposed to be a time of optimism and exploration, of wanting to change the world. If current youth is already unhappy, we can’t assume they will grow happier, like those of us over 60 seem to have.  This is the America we’re bequeathing them; the question is, are we OK with that?

 Maybe a trip to Lithuania isn’t a bad idea after all.

 

Microplastics, Major Problem

It’s been almost four years since I first wrote about microplastics; long story short, they’re everywhere. In the ground, in the oceans (even at the very bottom), in the atmosphere. More to the point, they’re in the air you breathe and in the food you eat. They’re in you, and no one thinks that is a good thing. But we’re only starting to understand the harm they cause.

Who knows what microplastics are doing in our body? Credit: Bing Image Creator

The Washington Post recently reported:

Scientists have found microplastics — or their tinier cousins, nanoplastics — embedded in the human placenta, in blood, in the heart and in the liver and bowels. In one recent study, microplastics were found in every single one of 62 placentas studied; in another, they were found in every artery studied.

One 2019 study estimated “annual microplastics consumption ranges from 39000 to 52000 particles depending on age and sex. These estimates increase to 74000 and 121000 when inhalation is considered.” A more recent study estimated that a single liter of bottled water may include 370,000 nanoplastic particles. “It’s sobering at the very least, if not very concerning,” Pankaj Pasricha, MD, MBBS, chair of the department of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, who was not involved with the new research, told Health. 

But we still don’t have a good sense of exactly what harm they cause. “I hate to say it, but we’re still at the beginning,” Phoebe Stapleton, a professor of pharmacology and toxicology at Rutgers University, told WaPo.

A new study sheds some light – and it is not good. It found that people with microplastics in their heart were at higher risk of heart attack, stroke, and death. The researchers looked at the carotid plaque from patients who were having it removed, and found 60% of them had microplastics and/or nanoplastics. They followed patients for three years to determine the impacts on patients’ health, and found higher morbidity/mortality.

“We are reasonably sure that the problem comes from a frailty of the plaque itself,” says Giuseppe Paolisso, a professor of internal medicine and geriatrics at the University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli in Naples, Italy, and one of the study’s authors. “We suppose due to the fact that the plaques with microplastics and nanoplastics have a higher degree of inflammation, this kind of plaque can be broken more easily; and once they are broken, they can go into the blood streams.”

“This is pivotal,” Philip Landrigan, an epidemiologist and professor of biology at Boston College, who was not involved in the study, wrote in an accompanying opinion piece. “For so long, people have been saying these things are in our bodies, but we don’t know what they do.” He went on to add: “If they can get into the heart, why not into the brain, the nervous system? What about the impacts on dementia or other chronic neurological diseases?”

Scary stuff.

If that isn’t scary enough, an article last yar in PNAS found: “Indeed, it turns out that a host of potentially infectious disease agents can live on microplastics, including parasites, bacteria, fungi, and viruses.” Even worse: “Beyond their potential for direct delivery of infectious agents, there’s also growing evidence that microplastics can alter the conditions for disease transmission. That could mean exacerbating existing threats by fostering resistant pathogens and modifying immune responses to leave hosts more susceptible.”

However much you’re worrying about microplastics, it’s not enough.

Marine ecologist Randi Rotjan of Boston University is blunt: “Cleaning up microplastics is not a viable solution. They are ubiquitous in our environment. And macroplastics are going to break down to microplastics for millennia. What we can do is try to understand the risk” Francesco Prattichizzo, one of the researchers in the new study, agrees, warning: “Plastic production is steadily increasing and is projected to continue increasing, so we must know how [and] if any of these molecules affect our health.” 

That’s easier said than done. As WaPo notes:

Part of the problem is that there is no one type of microplastic. The tiny plastic particles that slough off things like water bottles and takeout containers can be made of polyethylene, or polypropylene, or the mouth-twisting polyethylene terephthalate. They might take the form of tiny spheres, fragments or fibers.

Sherri Mason, director of sustainability at Penn State Behrend in Erie, Pa. told WaPo that, when it comes to assigning cause and effect: “Cigarettes are definitely easier than microplastics.” In the good news/bad news category, she added: “Probably over the next decade we’ll get a lot of good data. But we’ll never have all of the answers.”

Unfortunately, the amount of microplastics just keeps growing. Professor Stapleton told WaPo: “It’s almost like a generational accumulation. Forty years ago we didn’t have as much plastic in the environment as we do now. What will that look like 20 years from now?”

We can’t even imagine.

None of this is good news. Figure from Borrelle et al. (2017)

“The first step is to recognize that the low cost and convenience of plastics are deceptive and that, in fact, they mask great harms,” Professor Landrigan pointed out. Similarly, Lukas Kenner, a professor of pathology at the Medical University of Vienna, suggested to WaPo: “I’m a doctor, and we have our principle: ‘Don’t harm anybody. If you just spill plastics everywhere, and you have no idea what you’re doing, you’re going exactly against this principle.”

Microplastics are similar to cigarettes in that the health risks of the latter were pointed out years before any action was taken, and even then many people still smoke. It’s even more similar to climate change, in that we’ve had plenty of warning, and the impacts are starting to be clear, but the dangers accumulate over such a long period of time that no one feels compelled to act.

It’s also like climate change in that the fossil fuel companies bear a significant amount of the blame. Dr. Londrigan charges: “They realize that their market for burning fossil fuels is going down, yet they’re sitting on vast stocks of oil and gas and they’ve got to do something with it. So they’re transitioning it to plastic.” 

Perhaps biology will save us, with bacteria eating the microplastics. Or maybe it be robotics,  with nanobots doing the work. But we’ve been talking about engineering our way out of climate change for thirty plus years, and yet here we are, in climate crisis. I’m not holding my breath (although I’d ingest fewer microplastics that way) about fixing microplastics anytime soon.

We’ve all got a long list of things to worry about, but if microplastics isn’t already on yours, you should add it.

Wait Till Healthcare Tries Dynamic Pricing

Nice try, Wendy’s. During an earnings call last month, President and CEO Kirk Tanner outlined the company’s plan to try a new form of pricing: “Beginning as early as 2025, we will begin testing more enhanced features like dynamic pricing and day-part offerings along with AI-enabled menu changes and suggestive selling.” 

Wait for the surge pricing. Credit: Bing Image Creator

None of the analysts on the call questioned the statement, but the backlash from the public was immediate -- and quite negative. As Reuters described it: “the burger chain was scorched on social media sites.”

Less than two weeks later Wendy’s backtracked – err, “clarified” – the statement. “This was misconstrued in some media reports as an intent to raise prices when demand is highest at our restaurants,” a company blog post explained. “We have no plans to do that and would not raise prices when our customers are visiting us most.”

The company was even firmer in an email to CNN: “Wendy’s will not implement surge pricing, which is the practice of raising prices when demand is highest. This was not a change in plans. It was never our plan to raise prices when customers are visiting us the most.”

OK, then. Apology accepted.

Credit: Bon Appetit

At this point it is worth explaining a distinction between dynamic pricing and the more familiar surge pricing. As Omar H. Fares writes in The Conversation: "Although surge pricing and dynamic pricing are often used interchangeably, they have slightly different definitions. Dynamic pricing refers to any pricing model that allows prices to fluctuate, while surge pricing refers to prices that are adjusted upward."

Uber and other ride sharing services are well known for their surge pricing, whereas airlines’ pricing is more dynamic, figuring out prices by seat by when purchased by who is purchasing, among other factors.

Wendy’s wouldn’t be the first company to use dynamic pricing and it won’t be the last. Drew Patterson, co-founder of restaurant dynamic pricing provider Juicer, told The Wall Street Journal that dozens of restaurant brands used his company’s software. The company’s website doesn’t publicize those brands, of course. Still, he emphasized: “You need to make it clear that prices go up and they go down.” 

Dave & Busters is public about its pricing strategy. “We’re going to have a dynamic pricing model, so we have the right price at the right time to match the peak demand,” Dave & Buster’s CEO Chris Morris said during an investor presentation last year.  On the other hand, Dine Brands (Applebee’s/IHOP) Chief Executive John Peyton said. “We don’t think it’s an appropriate tool to use for our guests at this time.”

The potential revenue benefits are obvious, but there are risks, as Wendy’s quickly found out. Mr. Fares says: “One of the biggest risks associated with dynamic pricing is the potential negative impact on customer perception and trust. If customers feel that prices are unfair or unpredictable, they may lose trust in the brand.”

What Wendy’s tried to announce is not ground-breaking. Catherine Rampell pointed this out in a Washington Post op-ed:

In other words, things will be cheaper when demand is low to draw in more customers when there’s otherwise idle capacity. Lots of restaurants do this, including other burger chains. It’s usually called “happy hour.” Or the “early-bird special.” Non-restaurants do it, too. Think the weekday matinee deals at your local movie theater or cheaper airfares on low-traffic travel days.

Indeed, The Wall Street Journal reported: “An estimated 61% of adults support variable pricing where a restaurant lowers or raises prices based on business, with younger consumers more in favor of the approach than older ones, according to an online survey of 1,000 people by the National Restaurant Association trade group.” 

I wonder what the support would have been if the question would have been about healthcare instead of restaurants.  

Like it or not, some form of dynamic pricing will come to healthcare. Want a private room instead of semi-private? Surge pricing. Willing to see a nurse practitioner instead of a physician? Dynamic pricing. Want to buy prescription drugs in the U.S. instead of in Europe? Surge pricing. Want a doctor’s appointment Monday morning instead of Tuesday? Surge pricing. Need an ER visit Saturday night instead of Sunday afternoon? Surge pricing.

Some of these healthcare has been doing for years. Others, and even more insidious ones, are coming.

We have to know that the private equity firms that have invested in healthcare have to be interested. Yashaswini Singh and Christopher Whaley wrote in The Hill: “Over the last decade, private equity firms have spent nearly $1 trillion on close to 8,000 health care deals, snapping up practices that provide care from cradle to grave: fertility clinics, neonatal care, primary care, cardiology, hospices, and everything in between.”

They go on to warn: “Although research remains mixed on how it affects quality of care, there is clear evidence that private equity ownership increases prices. These firms aim to secure high returns on their investments — upwards of 20 percent in just three to five years — which can conflict with the goal of delivering affordable, accessible, high-value health care.”

Dynamic pricing has to look good to these firms. Surge pricing would look even better.   

 But one doesn’t have to be owned by private equity to be rapacious in healthcare. Everyone is looking for margins, everyone is looking to maximize revenue, and consumers – A.K.A. patients – grumble about prices but pay them anyway, especially if their health insurance company is paying most of the cost. In today’s healthcare world, if you are a CEO or CFO and you’re not considering dynamic pricing, it’s close to malfeasance.

To me, the scariest part of Wendy’s plan wasn’t the dynamic pricing but the “AI-enabled menu changes and suggestive selling.” Upcoding has been a problem in healthcare for as long as there has been coding, but when we get an AI-enabled menu of treatment options and suggested selling (aka treatments), well, we haven’t seen anything yet.

Maximize away.  

Look, I’m not going to Wendy’s even if they pay me, but I take my wife out on Valentine’s Day even though I know the restaurant has surged the hell out of its prices. Some things you pay for, and, when it comes to healthcare pricing, every day is Valentine’s Day.

I’m resigned to the fact that dynamic pricing has a toehold in healthcare already, but I’m holding out hope that we can use AI to help us make those recommendations and set those prices to deliver the most effective, efficient care, not just to maximize profits.

What Scares Healthcare Like EV Scares Detroit?

I’m thinking about electric vehicles (EVs)…and healthcare.

They should be worried. Credit: Bing Image Creator

Now, mind you, I don’t own an EV. I’m not seriously thinking about getting one (although if I’m still driving in the 2030’s I expect it will be in one). To be honest, I’m not really all that interested in EVs. But I am interested in disruption, so when Robinson Meyer warned in The New York Times “China’s Electric Vehicles Are Going to Hit Detroit Like a Wrecking Ball,” he had my attention. And when on the same day I also read that Apple was cancelling its decade-long effort to build an EV, I was definitely paying attention.

Remember when 3 years ago GM’s CEO Mary Barra announced GM was planning for an “all electric future” by 2035, completely phasing out internal combustion engines? Remember how excited we were when the Inflation Reduction Act passed in August 2022 with lots of credits and incentives for EVs? EVs sure seemed like our future.

Well, as Sam Becker wrote for the BBC: “Depending on how you look at it, the state of the US EV market is flourishing – or it's stuck in neutral.” Ford, for example, had a great February, with huge increases in its EV and hybrid sales, but 90% of its sales remain conventional vehicles. Worse, it recently had to stop shipments of its F-150 Lightning electric pickup truck due to quality concerns. Frankly, EV is a money pit for Ford, costing it $4.7b last year – over $64,000 for every EV it sells.

GM also loses money on every EV it makes, although it hopes to make modest profits on them by 2025.  Ms. Barra is still hoping GM will be all electric by 2035, but now hedges: “We will adjust based on where customer demand is. We will be led by the customer.”

In more bad news for EVs, Rivian has had more layoffs due to slow sales, and Fisker announced it is stopping work on EVs for now. Tesla, on the other hand, claims a 38% increase in deliveries for 2023, but more recently its stock has been hit by a decline in sales in China. It shouldn’t be surprising.

As Mr. Meyer points out:

The biggest threat to the Big Three comes from a new crop of Chinese automakers, especially BYD, which specialize in producing plug-in hybrid and fully electric vehicles. BYD’s growth is astounding: It sold three million electrified vehicles last year, more than any other company, and it now has enough production capacity in China to manufacture four million cars a year…A deluge of electric vehicles is coming.

He's blunt about the threat BYD poses: “BYD’s cars deliver great value at prices that beat anything coming out of the West.”

BYDs are coming. Credit: BYD

The Biden Administration is not just sitting idly. Last December the Administration proposed rules that would limit Inflation Reduction Act subsidies going to materials from China – it doesn’t just make cheap EVs, it makes cheap batteries – and last week warned that internet-connected Chinese vehicles, including EVs, could pose a threat to national security: “China’s policies could flood our market with its vehicles, posing risks to our national security…Connected vehicles from China could collect sensitive data about our citizens and our infrastructure and send this data back to the People’s Republic of China. These vehicles could be remotely accessed or disabled.”

And, of course, underprice American-made vehicles.

Mr. Meyer identifies the core problem for at least Ford and GM: “Specifically, Ford’s and GM’s earnings rest primarily on selling pickup trucks, S.U.V.s and crossovers to affluent North Americans…In other words, if Americans’ appetite for trucks and S.U.V.s falters, then Ford and GM will be in real trouble.”

He believes that President Biden will need to impose trade restrictions, but not blindly:

Mr. Biden must be careful not to cordon off the American car market from the rest of the world, turning the United States into an automotive backwater of bloated, expensive, gas-guzzling vehicles. The Chinese carmakers are the first real competition that the global car industry has faced in decades, and American companies must be exposed to some of that threat, for their own good. That means they must feel the chill of death on their necks and be forced to rise and face this challenge.

It's the 1970’s all over again, when American was selling over-priced, gas-guzzling sedans while Japan and South Korea were offering cheaper, more energy-efficient, higher quality compacts. Now it is China and EVs versus our internal combustion pickups & SUVs. Look how that turned out for Detroit.

The “chill of death” indeed.

-----------

When I think of the Detroit Big Three analogy for healthcare, I think of hospitals (30% of all spending), clinicians (20%), and pharmaceutical companies (9%). When I think about the affluent Americans buying the big SUVs/pickups, I think about the small percent of the population who account for most of spending: the top 1% accounts for 24% of spending, the top 5% for 51%, and the top 10% 67%. The bottom 50% of the population accounts for 3%.

The healthcare system is designed around the big spenders, and price is seemingly no object for them (although, of course, unlike the affluent and their big vehicles, we all pay for the big healthcare spenders through our premiums and taxes). If we magically made them healthy (which seems like a good thing), the healthcare system would collapse (which seems like a bad thing).

Fifteen or so years ago one might have hoped that EHRs and the digitalization of healthcare generally might be the equivalent of EVs hitting the automotive industry. That didn’t happen; as it is wont to do, healthcare just absorbed them and kept making things more expensive. Today one might hope that AI will make everything more efficient, more effective, and, goodness knows, less expensive, but I’m not holding my breath. Right now, I don’t see anything that will “deliver great value at prices that beat anything coming out of the West.”

I want the US to be a leader in EVs, and other clean energy technologies. I want us to be a leader in all the 21^st century technologies, including those, AI, quantum computing, robotics, nanotechnology, synthetic biology, and materials science, to name a few. And I want our healthcare system to be a 21^st century leader too; as I like to say, I want it to be more familiar to someone from the 22^nd century than to someone from the 20^th century, as I fear is still true today.

Unfortunately, I’m still not sure what the thing is that will give healthcare “the chill of death” and force it to be better.

We Freeze People, Don't We?

Perhaps you’ve heard about the controversial Alabama Supreme Court ruling about in-vitro fertilization (IVF), in which the court declared that frozen embryos were people. The court stated that it has long held that “unborn children are ‘children,’” with Chief Justice Tom Parker – more on him later – opining in a concurring opinion:

Human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself. Even before birth, all human beings bear the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory.

Seriously.

Be careful with those "people" / Credit: Bing Image Creator

Many people have already weighed in on this decision and its implications, but I couldn’t resist taking some pleasure in seeing “pro-life” advocates tying themselves in knots trying to explain why, when they legislated that life begins at conception, they didn’t mean this kind of conception and that kind of life.

John Oliver was typically on point, noting that the Alabama ruling was “wrong for a whole bunch of reasons. Mainly, if you freeze an embryo it's fine. If you freeze a person, you have some explaining to do."

The case in question wasn’t specifically about IVF, nor did the ruling explicitly outlaw it. It was a case about a patient who removed stored embryos and accidentally dropped them, and the couples whose embryos were destroyed wanted to hold that patient liable under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. The court said they could. Note, though, that neither the patient nor the clinic was being charged with murder or manslaughter…yet.

Although the Alabama Attorney General has already indicated he won’t prosecute IVF patients or clinicians, the ruling has had a chilling effect on fertility clinics in the states, with The University of Alabama at Birmingham health system and others indicating they were putting a pause on IVF treatments.

Justice Parker has long been known as something of a theocrat; as The New York Times wrote:

Since he was first elected to the nine-member court in 2004, and in his legal career before it, he has shown no reticence about expressing how his Christian beliefs have profoundly shaped his understanding of the law and his approach to it as a lawyer and judge.

His concurring opinion claimed: the state constitution had adopted a "theologically-based view of the sanctity of life." Alabama is not alone. Kelly Baden, the vice president for public policy at the Guttmacher Institute, told BBC: "We do see that many elected officials and judges alike are often coming at this debate from a highly religious lens."

Speaker Johnson has said:

The separation of church and state is a misnomer. People misunderstand it. Of course, it comes from a phrase that was in a letter that Jefferson wrote. It’s not in the Constitution. And what he was explaining is they did not want the government to encroach upon the church — not that they didn’t want principles of faith to have influence on our public life. It’s exactly the opposite.

And here we are.

Umm, a misnomer? Credit: Bing Image Creator

Many Republicans are backtracking on the ruling. Alabama Republican Governor Kay Ivey said she was “working on a solution.” Alabama legislators are already working on bills to protect IVF, clarifying that in vitro fertilization doesn’t count, with life only beginning when implanted in a uterus. Oh, OK, then.

Presumed Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump says he “strongly” supports IVF, and Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson said: “I believe the life of every single child has inestimable dignity and value. That is why I support IVF treatment, which has been a blessing for many moms and dads who have struggled with fertility,” Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville somewhat hilariously managed to somehow both support the ruling and the need for IVF.

Eric Johnston, president of the Alabama Pro-Life Coalition, admitted:

It's a win philosophically for the pro-life movement because it carries on the pro-life recognition of unborn life. But you get into a very difficult situation, where you have this medical procedure that's accepted by most people, and then how do you deal with it? That's the dilemma… But I think the pro-life community in general supports IVF, and I've known and worked with many people who have had children via IVF. And at the same time, they think abortion is wrong. This issue is so different from abortion, but it has to do with life."

The trouble is, red states are scrambling all over themselves passing ever-more restrictive abortion laws, with the “life begins at conception” mantra, and, despite what Speaker Johnson and other House Republicans say now, 125 of them have cosponsored the Life at Conception Act that makes no exception for IVF.

Gosh, who could have guessed IVF would be impacted by all this?  Well, anyone who thought about it for a half second.

Although IVF only accounts for about 2% of births, it has been around for decades. An untold number of embryos are routinely stored (frozen) and, in some cases, destroyed. Now people like Republican Governor Greg Abbott would have us believe IVF is taking us all by surprise:

These are very complex issues where I’m not sure everybody has really thought about what all the potential problems are and as a result, no one really knows what the potential answers are. And I think you’re going to see states across the country come together grappling with these issues and coming up with solutions.

Once a fetus or an embryo is a person, what rights do they have, when do they qualify for tax credits/welfare/child support, and how do their rights compare to other people? As Jacob Holmes suggested in the Alabama Political Reporter: “Imagine you are in an in vitro fertilization clinic that is on fire, and you have time to save only 100 frozen embryos or a single 2-year-old child.” Do you save the most “lives,” or the only one actually breathing?

I would be remiss if I didn’t note that Alabama has the third highest infant mortality rate in the U.S. (thank you, Arkansas and Mississippi!), and that it was one of 15 (red) states that is rejecting federal funds to help feed hungry children doing the summer (Alabama has some 500,000 such children).  

Evidently, unborn or frozen “people” matter more than live ones.

---------------

These are, I admit, complex ethical issues, but trying to legislate them, especially from the standpoint of one particular religious point-of-view, is only going to lead to more outcomes like we're seeing in Alabama. Democracy demands that we do better to listen than to tell.

Chips Off the AI Block

I’ve been thinking a lot about chips lately, and not only because, according to The New York Times, chocolate chip ice cream has fallen out of favor.  As dismayed as I was about that, I was even more surprised to learn that, as of last Wednesday, computer chip maker Nvidia now is the 3^rd largest U.S. company – and 4^th largest worldwide – by market capitalization. Bigger than Amazon, Alphabet, or Meta, not to mention Tesla.

Credit: Bing Image Creator

If you’re a stock maven, or are deeply interested in A.I., you might have been following Nvidia. The company specializes in designing chips that powers A.I. applications. It has also has long been a presence in advanced chips for, among other things, gaming, cloud computing, and image computing. But Nvidia is hardly a top-of-mind company for consumers, unlike Microsoft or Apple (both of whom it trails in market cap) or the other Big Tech companies.

You may want to start paying more attention to it.

The A.I. revolution of the last two years has been very good for Nvidia; its stock is up over 200% in the last 12 months alone. Charlie Blaine of The Street noted: “Let's say you bought 100 Nvidia shares at the end of 2018. Adjusting for the split later on, the price would be $33. Today, your stake would be worth $726,700, up 2,100%.”

Nvidia first hit $1 trillion in market capitalization last May, some 24 years after going public. It is now worth around $1.8 trillion, and analysts are eagerly awaiting Wednesday’s earnings call. "It could be the most important earnings in all tech year to date, and possibly the entire stock market," Jordan Klein, managing director for tech, media and telecom sector trading at Mizuho Securities, said in a client note. "Nvidia is not up 47% year to date to $1.8 trillion market cap because nobody cares, right?"

By contrast, Intel – which many consumers might be able to name – has a market cap about one tenth of Nvidia’s, although Nvidia trailed Intel as recently as 2020.

To call Nvidia a chip maker or chip manufacturer is somewhat misleading, though. What it does uniquely well is chip design. TMSC (Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company) does most of its actual production, as it does for many chip companies. Oh, sure, there are other chip manufacturers, including AMD, Intel and Samsung, but TMSC produces about 90% of the world’s high performance chips. You want AI? You want quantum computing? You want the future?  Then you need Nvidia.

Given the decades-long tensions between China and Taiwan, not to mention increasing tensions between China and America, including US restrictions on advanced technology to China, it should give pause to think that a Chinese invasion of, or a missile strike on, Taiwan could severely hamper development of AI and other advanced technologies.

That’s one reason TMSC is diversifying the locations of its fabrication plants, with two planned in the US, two in Japan, and “possibly” one in Germany.  Its first planned Arizona plant was scheduled to start production by the end of 2024, but that has slipped into the first half of 2025, a delay attributed in part to lack of skilled employees. Its second Arizona plant now won’t be in production until 2027 or 2028, instead of 2026. The progress is somewhat dependent on “how much incentives that the U.S. government can provide,” Mark Liu, TSMC’s chairman, said in an investor call. The Wall Street Journal reports: “negotiations between the Biden administration and TSMC over subsidies have proven challenging, say people on both sides.”

Those incentives were supposed to come from the 2022 Chips and Science Act, which was to invest some $50b to boost US chip manufacturing. But progress has been slower than expected. Similar to TMSC’s issues in Arizona, Intel’s much publicized Ohio expansion now isn’t expected to even be completed until late 2026, instead of beginning production in 2025 as originally planned.

Just last week the Biden administration released its first major award, some $1.5b to New York-based GlobalFoundaries, with another $1.6b in loans. That’s a long way from $50b and not much visible progress for 18 months since passage. “Nothing has failed yet,” Emily Kilcrease, a senior fellow and the director of the energy, economics and security program at the Center for a New American Security, told NYT. “But we’re going to have to see some progress and those factories actually coming online in the next few years for the program to be considered a success.”

And, in any event, TSMC may be planning to keep its most advanced processes at home, not in its overseas plants. So much for reducing dependency.

------------

If you think the world’s dependence on a single manufacturing company for our most advanced chips is scary, it’s worse than that. TSMC and other chip manufacturers rely on EUV lithography, which is used to engrave the chips. And there’s only one company -- Advanced Semiconductor Materials Lithography – that produces the machines to do that.

If you hadn’t heard of Nvidia, and perhaps even if you had, you almost certainly hadn’t heard of ASML, or understood its importance. “ASML has a monopoly on the fabrication of EUV lithography machines, the most advanced type of lithography equipment that’s needed to make every single advanced processor chip that we use today,” Chris Miller, assistant professor at the Fletcher School at Tufts University, explained to CNBC. “The machines that they produce, each one of them is among the most complicated devices ever made.” TMSC, Intel, and Samsung – all of whom are major investors -- account for over 80% of its sales.

ASML is located in the Netherlands, so is just one hypersonic missile away from Russia destroying the chip market.

----------

I’ll be watching Nvidia’s earning report with some interest. Its stock might be in a bubble, but AI is only going to get bigger, which is good for Nvidia. It’d be cool to see if it can top $2 trillion in market cap, especially if it vaults Saudi Aramco into 3^rd overall spot. Its success is a classic capitalism success story; it built a better mousetrap, and the world beat a path to it.

But reliance on two companies – TMSC and ASML – for some of our most advanced technologies is the opposite of capitalism, especially when they are so geographically constrained. If we want to play hardball with our geopolitical rivals about advanced technologies, just remember that they can do some brush back of their own.

The Chips Act was a widely supported effort at industrial policy, but, so far, it has been too little, too slow.