November 8, 2023 • 35 mins
We explore the worker exodus from major cities, weight loss drugs, and developing America's risk-takers. We also dig into a debate around eSports - should it be an Olympic sport? Bloomberg Opinion's Adam Minter thinks so. Adam Minter joins us, as do Bloomberg Opinion columnists Conor Sen, Lisa Jarvis, and Allison Schrager. Amy Morris hosts.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast count us Saturdays
at one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com,
the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen
on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Welcome to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris. This week we
look at the bond between parent and child and how
it can sometimes be a little too much. Bloomberg's Alison
Schrager tells us how the kids of so called helicopter
parents are less likely to take risks. We'll also look
at those trendy new weight loss drugs and find out
(00:37):
what doctors are asking. Bloomberg's Lisa Jarvis tells us just
how long do you have to be on them? And
will your weight come back if you stop? Plus the
latest push for a new sport in the Olympics, e
Sports Adam Mentor writes about a strong argument for why
the Olympic Committee might want to consider gaming as a
(00:58):
new Olympic sport. At first, we begin with the return
to the office or lack of it, and the housing
market Now. Earlier this month, Bloomberg's Wall Street week Daily
spoke with Joshua Pristall, head of real estate at Predium.
Speaker 3 (01:13):
What we're seeing is that supply is being destroyed faster
than demand as a result of rising rates, and that's
really a function of what we call the mortgage lock
in effect. So the averaging place mortgage is about three
point six percent interest rate. People can't afford to move
to a smaller house let alone, or larger if their
thirty year mortgage is going to more than double. But
the real solution resides with building more supply. We continue
(01:36):
to see the best value long term in the states
that are in the smile of the country southeast southwest.
Now that doesn't mean that there aren't great opportunities in
other places, but where people are moving and where the
job growth is is generally where there's.
Speaker 4 (01:50):
Not enough housing.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
And that was Joshua Pristall, head of real estate at Predium,
speaking with Bloomberg's Wall Street week Daily earlier this month. Now,
the big migration story of the pandemic was the emptying
out of major US cities. As more employees begin to
return partly or even fully to their offices, people have
started talking about a possible rejuvenation, but not everyone believes
(02:15):
that's going to happen, at least not quite yet. Let's
bring in Bloomberg opinion columnist Connorson, founder of Peachtree Creek Investments,
and Connor, you talk about in your column how major
US cities emptied out during the pandemic, But aren't people
coming back now? Don't you see a rejuvenation coming?
Speaker 5 (02:33):
We certainly have seen a big back to the office movement,
and at least in my circles, it seems like four
days a week with Friday being flex Day, is sort
of the new normal for corporate America. So I think
that for the most part, return of the office has
now played out. And the reason I wanted to write
my column is that we get new Census data in
December for what migration trends look like in twenty twenty three,
and that's going to capture the period between mid twenty
(02:54):
twenty two and mid twenty twenty three when existing home
sales really fell off as mortgage rates rows. And so
my belief, and based on postal service data, is that
it will show that migration really tailed off. So there's
a very little movement away from New York and Chicago
and the West Coast, all the places that lost a
lot of population during COVID, and it's not necessarily due
(03:15):
to back to the office, but just because high mortgage
rates and low home sales mean nobody's moving right now, I.
Speaker 2 (03:21):
Want to get into that. But you said something about
the postal service, and I think it's fascinating how they
were able to track these pandemic migration trends. What was
the system that they used.
Speaker 5 (03:32):
So what they do is, if you ever move, you
can do a change of address request and you don't
have to, but a lot of people do. So it's
sort of a consistent data set over time, and they
look at buy zip code, the number of requests from
a certain zip code and to a certain zip code.
So if you're moving from New York to Miami, maybe
you'll send a request from New York or to Miami,
and so that data is tracked and you can aggregate
(03:54):
that to see sort of a pretty good way of
looking at where people are leaving and moving to over time.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
So they keep track of this using those change of
address forms exactly.
Speaker 5 (04:04):
And so we saw there was a pretty big drop
off from twenty twenty one to twenty twenty two as
the pandemic started to reced people went back to the office,
and then we saw that in the sense of data
a year ago, and then looking at the post service
data we have so far this year, we've seen another
big drop off as the lack of home sales and
people sort of unable to move due to high mortgage
rates has led to another tail off in migration.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
Let's talk about that. The migration slowed as the housing
market sputtered. But the conventional wisdom is that the housing
market will be coming back as people return. You say,
don't hold your breath, Well, I think that.
Speaker 5 (04:38):
I do think housing transactions are going to pick up
because life happens, and most people can't put off a
move for years and years and years. And if it
means eight percent mortgage rates, prices will go down, if
that's what they have to do. And so you know,
it might not be three months and might not be
six months, but over the next two, three five years,
home sales are likely to pick up. And that means
the migration patterns we saw during COVID, maybe not to
(05:00):
the case and destinations, but from the northeast and west
coast to the mountain west and south we'll pick up again.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
So interstate migration and the level of existing home sales
are linked.
Speaker 5 (05:10):
They're connected exactly because for the most part, two thirds
of households or homeowners, if you want to move, you're
selling a house to buy another house. If you're moving
from New York to Florida, you're probably selling a New
York house to buy a Florida house. So if you're
not seeing many home sales, you're not seeing much migration.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
And we're talking with Bloomberg opinion columnist Connorson who tells
us that the exodus from big cities isn't over yet,
but it does Connor, seem like it's on pause. How
long is this pause going to last?
Speaker 5 (05:39):
And that's really where the housing market plays in. So
I think this is important if you're in a Miami
or a place like that, or you're in New York
and you're saying, well, is this the new normal? Did
we have a one off boom in migration during COVID,
Now we got back to the office, Now this is
the new normal? And I don't think it is. I
think that people this was all always set to be
a decade with a lot more migration as millennials agent
(06:01):
their family forming years and wanted more space as baby
boomers were tired and maybe didn't need to live in
the Midwestern Northeast anymore. And then also the ability to
sort of work at least hybrid or remote some of
the time makes it easier to not be in a
big city, at least somewhat easier than it was before.
So I do think we're due for a big migration boom,
but the housing market and mortgage rates right now are
keeping that from happening.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
Let's build on something you just said. Had it not
been for the pandemic, that migration for lack of a
better word, or the exodus from those cities may have
been happening anyway because of the baby boomers, the millennials
in their career Pathsah.
Speaker 5 (06:36):
Yeah, we saw that migration in the late twenty tens
was higher than it was in the early twenty tens,
and part of it was the economy was better as well.
So in the early twenty tens we were still in
the aftermath of the foreclosure crisis. The labor market was
pretty tough and that was holding back migration as well.
So there was sort of some pent up migration from
sort of lack of movement in the early twenty tens,
so it was already starting to pick up. The pandemic
(06:57):
was kind of a one off frenzy, and I think
some of that was maybe likely to be repeated. Like
I don't think that Lake Tahoe will see a boom
of migration going forward. That might have been a remote
work thing, but certainly there's places with cheaper housing and
now more jobs as companies are trying to spread out
where their jobs are nationally, that kind of migration is
going to come back.
Speaker 2 (07:16):
But what about rising interest rates? Would that be enough
to slow them?
Speaker 5 (07:19):
It certainly is for now, and the question is how
long is that going to persist. Most people think that
existing home sales are going to be very low next year.
I think they're going to pick up. We're seeing that
housing inventory is sort of starting to rise at an
unseasonable time of the year, and I think part of
that is just because people decided not to sell their
homes eighteen months ago and sort of the life changed.
Reasons for movement your deaths, divorces, babies, all that, those
(07:43):
are still happening, and maybe you put off the move
for a year eighteen months, but you probably can't do
it for three or five years, and so I do
think we're going to see more inventory like next year,
and more inventory is going to lead to more transactions
as the housing market isn't quite so inventory constrained.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
Because remember last how people were selling their homes at
more than the asking price, and homes would be going
as soon as they're listed, or maybe they wouldn't even
make it to the list at all. They would be
sold just side unseen. I can give you anecdotal, an
anecdote about my aunt retiring, selling her house to her
(08:18):
neighbor who said, I've always wanted your house, I want
it now, and just there it was. It was just
a quick sale. That's not happening as much now. But
do you see that happening again, I mean, was last
summer or one off?
Speaker 5 (08:32):
Well, the wild thing is that obviously affordability is the
worst it's been in forty years right now, and yet
if you still talk to real estate agents, they say
that there are more buyers and sellers because there's so
little inventory out there. So homes that are put on
the market and priced well are still moving quickly, and
if they had more inventory, they would have more sales.
And it doesn't mean prices would go up. I think
(08:52):
when we think about what does the housing market need
right now, it's not higher prices. It's more inventory, more transactions,
more liquidity, And the fact that we're seeing inventory rise
right now suggests that we will see those sort of
beneficial dynamics next year, even if it doesn't mean. I
don't think we're going to see much price growth next year,
but I do think we'll see more transactions.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
It seems like that would be counterintuitive to an exodus.
Then if the home sales are then rising, then wouldn't
you want to go back into the city and go
back toward where your offices are Or has that dynamic
been completely changed in our own minds by what we
went through with the pandemic.
Speaker 5 (09:28):
Well, I think the reason why people move to New
York tends to be young people moving for jobs and
immigrants moving to the US, and the people leaving New
York tends to be retirees and people moving out for
more space. So it gets to why people move to
certain places, and so sort of, if the housing market
is more liquid, it lets people sell their homes and
move out of the places where people tend to move
(09:48):
away from. When the sort of that kind of pattern
of migration.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
So what are you looking for in the next few months?
Then what should we watch for?
Speaker 5 (09:58):
So I am focused most primarily on inventory because I
think inventory will lead to sales and if we see
that sort of flywheel kick in. And part of it too,
is that if you want to move, sometimes you can't
move if there isn't a home for you to buy.
So if there's more inventory, not only can you find
something to buy, but that late makes you able to
sell as well. And if we get that flywheel dynamic
of more inventory, more transactions, that I will sort of
(10:20):
project that migration is going to pick up again. And
seeing which places are the new hotspots for migration in
this sort of post COVID new normal.
Speaker 2 (10:27):
Got any idea what those hot spots might be.
Speaker 5 (10:31):
Too? So I think it's toughest because yeah, it's the
price of movements have been so extreme, like you sell
the booms busts and Boise and Austin and Miami, and
so I think we need to see things settle out
a little bit more until we know for sure.
Speaker 2 (10:43):
Okay, thank you Connor.
Speaker 3 (10:45):
Thanks.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
Amy Connorson is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist and founder of
Peachtree Creek Investments. Now coming up, we'll look at the
bond between child and parent and how sometimes it might
be a good eye to loosen those apron strings a bit.
You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast cotch us Saturdays
at one and seven pm Eastern.
Speaker 6 (11:17):
On Bloomberg dot com, the iHeartRadio app and the Bloomberg
Business app, or listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris. You know
parents are spending more time than ever with their kids.
In nearly every wealthy country, the parent child together time
has steadily increased, and this hyper attention might actually be
harmful to children. Bloomberg Opinion columnist Alison Sriger covers economics
and joins us with some insight. Now, Allison, we've heard
(11:47):
all the stories about how gen X is the last
of the free range kids. You stay outside, you play
all day, you go home before the street lights come on,
you drink from the hose. I know you've heard all
the stories. There is something to be said, though, for
parents who do spend more time with their kids than
maybe we got when we were kids. How can that
be bad?
Speaker 4 (12:06):
Well, in some ways, there are a lot of benefits.
I mean, the evidence is somewhat mixed, but I mean
there's no doubt that kids are safer, They're less likely
to die in accidents and things like that. And you know,
I think, you know, there is evidence that parents who
can you know, who can spend more time engaging with
their kids do do well for developmental reasons. But I mean,
they're diminishing returns to the fact it could even be harmful.
(12:28):
And I think, you know, there was a recent paper
that came out in the journal Pediatrics sort of suggesting
that this might be one of the reasons why kids
are also a lot more emotionally anxious and depressed, because
you know, spending time on your own as a child
is really important developmentally. It's how you develop like a
sense of control over your environment. It's how you develop
(12:48):
independence and ability to resolve conflicts. All these things are
really important to your development. And you know this this
article came out and just for another my book project,
I happen to be speaking to a lot of people
about this already, and I was speaking to a professor
at Georgetown a psychology professor, and her work says there's
something called the age of release, which sounds really like
(13:11):
you're get In fact, when I was googling it to
try to find her work, I kept finding things about prison.
But this is actually a psychological term for children for
when you're allowed to sort of roam free, or at
least go places by your own or unsupervised. And she
finds that your age of release actually is very indicative
of your ability to take risks when you're older, your
(13:31):
ability to handle setbacks. And as I said it, like
the age of release, she says, is ticked up over
the years, six or seven years to the point where
the age of release, you know, I don't know. I
kind of had a loose parents, so I had a
very early age of release, even compared to other people,
even for people of my generation. Sure, but so I
was like six or seven, but like now it's like fourteen.
Speaker 2 (13:52):
Wow. And let's just clarify because I picked up on
that in your column, the age of release, And that's
sort of like when you're first allowed to go to
a sleepover or maybe walk to school by yourself, or
do those things that are unsupervised. That seem like a
rite of passage. When you are as young as six.
I think I was maybe seven or eight perhaps when
that time came along, was just pretty normal. But you're
(14:14):
saying now, it doesn't happen until they're in their teen years.
Speaker 4 (14:17):
Yeah, And she was telling me how she asked her
class recently, how old were you when you were allowed
to play unsupervised? And they're just like, we were too
old to play by the time we were unsupervised. It's
just sad.
Speaker 2 (14:30):
Wow, that's rough. And so the point of all of this,
and the point of that article you were referencing, is
that if you're not allowed to play unsupervised by a
certain time, then you're missing out on that developmental gift
that gives you to be able, to what reason, be
comfortable in your own skin, be comfortable on your own
(14:51):
What is it you're missing?
Speaker 4 (14:52):
Well, kin, this is it. I mean at the Journal
Pediatrics article talked a lot about how it might be
contributing to depression and anxiety. Talking to the press or Georgetown,
we are talking more about your comfort with risk taking.
And her research is finding you know, she's comparing across
different countries and found that like kids with later ages
of release were just like more fearful and less comfortable
(15:14):
with risk taking. She found like over the years her
Georgetown students, you know, found like she'd be like, explain
the last time you were scared or you're an intense situation,
and they'd describe things that used to not even register
and they're more like some of them won't even leave campus,
they won't take public transportation. So it ends up really
having this impact on your comfort with the world and
(15:36):
comfort with risk, you know, for the rest of your life.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
Now, when these kids grow up, how will this childhood
and how they spent it manifest itself in the workplace.
Speaker 4 (15:46):
Well, I mean I personally, I mean it's hard to
prove empirically, but I suspect it might be. Were been
seeing an overall decline in risk taking for young adults, certainly,
like despite all the hype and we hear about less
job changing, less moving, less, lower rates of entrepreneurship, you know,
on you know, all sort of things that require you
(16:08):
to be have some comfort with ambiguity and uncertainty. And
I suspect those things might be related, like being raised
with less comfort with risk and then taking less economic
risk and perhaps even emotional risk. When I was doing
I said the book research, you know, even like, you know,
there's all these reports that young people are less likely
to form relationships or even date anyway. You know, it's
(16:31):
so much easier to meet people with apps and whatnot.
And you know a lot of surveys people said, what
is your fear about dating? And they're like, it feels risky.
And when I was talking to some professors about this too,
they're just like they're talking about like I assume they
meant risk, like emotional risk. You might get hurt, you
might get rejected, and that's scary. And she was like, no,
They're like, well, I could end up talking to someone
and it could feel awkward. They're like, or like this
(16:52):
conversation stalling, or like all these very human things.
Speaker 2 (16:55):
Wow, And we are talking the Bloomberg opinion columnist Allison Schreker,
who who has a column on the Bloomberg Terminal about
how perhaps American parents should teach their kids more about
taking risks. And Alison, how is it parents are able
to spend more time with their kids now compared to say,
in the nineteen sixties, when not everybody was working.
Speaker 4 (17:17):
It's fascinating to me, we're spending so much time with
kids because they compared to the sixties. Because women were
like housewives in the sixties and now most we're in
the labor force. Where's this time coming from? And I mean,
I suspect it's also like in the sixties they also
to spend a lot more time doing housework because they
didn't have the same technology. It's a big cultural shift
that we're seeing. And also it could be that, you know,
(17:41):
people are having fewer children, they also have more money,
so they just you know, I've read studies that's found
like a lot of people when they're trying to delve
into why people spend more time with their kids, and
one of the big things that kept coming up is
people just enjoy their kids. You know, maybe in the sixties,
when you had like a million chores to do to
also take care of your kids, felt like not that
people didn't love the kids, but it felt like this
(18:01):
extra burden. And now that I guess we're richer and
live more comfortable lives, people are just relishing time with
their kids more, which is nice in a lot of ways.
And you are noticing, like you observe, people complain about
this a lot and developmenttally, I don't know how healthy
it is that people seem to be friends with their
kids all through high school and college. It's not like
when we were young, where we would just like go
to college not speak to our parents for three weeks
(18:23):
and it's nice. I guess in some ways they're like
friends with their parents and don't have this period of
individuation where they barely speak to them, even though developmentally
that might have some value.
Speaker 2 (18:32):
The flip side of this coin, though, is that parents
got to be facing a lot of pressure when it
comes to being involved in their kids' lives. The pressure
that the kids are feeling to be able to excel
and achieve and to win and to push themselves. The
parents are feeling similar pressure as well when it comes
to being the best parent ever. And that's going to
mean spending more time with the kids.
Speaker 4 (18:52):
Yeah. I mean, you see surveys where parents are like,
my kid would really benefit from more alone time, but
when everyone else is and there's a lot of social shame,
and also it feels like a very economically cutthroat environment.
I'm actually sure that's true, but certainly that's the perception.
It's amazing to me that so many parents, like every
parent I know spends a lot of time with their
kids on their homework. Like, my parents never got involved
(19:14):
in my homework.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
God, I don't think my parents knew what classes I
was taking.
Speaker 4 (19:19):
Yeah, so it's like if I wrote, if I had
like a bad homework assignment and I got a bad grade,
that was like my problem to bear, that's on you. Yeah,
But like people like with kids, like you know, they
feel like they've got to like be involved in their kids' homework,
which is very time consuming and I honestly can't imagine enjoyable.
(19:39):
But I think it is feeling like I've got to
give my kid every shot. They've got to like do
as well as they can in school. And you know,
whether or not that's really true, or whether or not
that's really correlated with emotional well being. Like I think
there's also a lot of correlation between anxiety and depression
in top colleges, So I mean there's that, So I mean,
maybe it's not worth it, but I think that's also
(20:01):
part of it. Is it feels like there's this rat
race and you have to give your kid every advantage,
and that involves this of sort of hyper concentrated attention
on them.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
Bloomberg Opinion columnist Alison Schreger covers economics now coming up.
Weight loss drugs are all the rage, but there are
some pressing questions like how long do you have to
take them? And will the weight come back when you stop?
And don't forget. We're available as a podcast on Apple,
Spotify or your favorite podcast platform. This is Bloomberg Opinion.
Speaker 1 (20:39):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast coutch Us Saturdays
at one and seven pm Eastern.
Speaker 6 (20:45):
On Bloomberg dot Com, the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg
Business App, or listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
This is Bloomberg Opinion. I Mami Morris. Obesity Week used
to be a quiet, annual meeting of weight loss specialists
and a few farmer reps, but not this year. There's
a new family of weight loss drugs available, and these
new drugs are changing everything. Even teenagers are interested in
getting their hands on the drugs. Seventeen year old Emma
Leah Zumo was part of the drug trial and found
(21:17):
dramatic results.
Speaker 6 (21:18):
I was really excited that there was a chance to
help me and maybe help me lose weight and finally get.
Speaker 7 (21:24):
A control on something that's been uncontrollable my whole life,
and also help other girls like me.
Speaker 2 (21:28):
On the other hand, doctor Veronica Johnson with Northwestern Medicine
says there is also a risk of using off brand
versions of these drugs.
Speaker 8 (21:36):
If a patient elects to use a compounded form of
the medication, we cannot guarantee what's actually in that drug.
Speaker 2 (21:46):
Let's get some insight now from Bloomberg opinion columnist Lisa Jarvis,
who covers biotech, healthcare and the pharmaceutical industry. Lisa, always
a pleasure. We've talked about these drugs before, you and
I and I have asked you before how long is
a person going to have to take these drugs? And
then what happens when you stop?
Speaker 4 (22:06):
Right?
Speaker 7 (22:06):
So you know, right now forever, it's sort of the
message around you know, how long you're going to have
to take these drugs? Because the studies that were conducted
to get the drugs approved, you know, they've shown they've
kept some people on the drug and given people placebo
after they've been on it for a year, and you
can see the downward you know, curve stays the same
(22:27):
for the people who keep on the drug, and the
people who are given a placebo gain their weight back,
not necessarily all of it, but most of it over
the course of the next year. So, you know, I
think for long term health effects, the realistic answer is forever,
but the kind of practical answer is maybe not. I
(22:47):
think that's a thing that's been explored among doctors right now,
not necessarily in clinical trials, but in the real life setting.
In some cases they've had to explore it because of
the drug shortages and the cost of the drug. So
many people are paying for these out of pocket that
they simply can't afford them anymore and they have to
stop taking them. So it's a thing that's a subject
(23:07):
of a lot of conversation in the OPCD medicine field.
Speaker 2 (23:11):
Are we also learning more now about what side effects
these drugs may bring on.
Speaker 7 (23:17):
I know there's some things that we're learning that are
getting some media attention that we're known but as many
many people take them. For example, there's a thing called
gastroparesis where it's very rare, but essentially the drugs keep
you feeling full in part by your stomach is actually
full for longer you empty it. Takes you a lot
(23:38):
longer to empty your stomach. Some people have their stomachs
aren't emptying, and so that can be dangerous. That's in
a very rare, very very rare cases, and you want
to know about that when people are on the drugs
because of that, if, for example, you were in an
accident and you needed to get surgery, your antithesiologist needs
(23:59):
to know that you around these drugs because that means
your stomach might be fuller than someone who hadn't eaten recently.
Speaker 2 (24:06):
Other than the weight loss, obviously, what side benefits are there.
Speaker 7 (24:09):
That's the thing that's kind of exciting about these drugs.
We've seen studies already that companies are running dozens and
dozens of trials to try to prove that there are
health benefits outside of the way, And already we know
with we GOV that it can lower the risk of
heart disease, heart attacks, and strokes. They stopped a trial
early recently around chronic kidney disease. So I think we're
(24:30):
just going to see more of these unfold and then
that helps us, you know, to kind of form an
argument around the societal cost of the drugs versus the benefits.
Speaker 2 (24:40):
So we're very early into this weight loss drug stage
where we are seeing that there are benefits and that
there are some side effects, but that for the most part,
it is doing what is supposed to do, which is
help you lose weight. Is there a way to change
the formula? Do you see some evolution there the dosed,
the frequency to help tailor the drug to the patient.
Speaker 7 (25:05):
Yeah, I think a lot of that experimenting is happening
because you know, one side effect is that it makes
people nauseous, you know, I mean, I think that's one
that some people decide they're going to tolerate. For some
people it goes away over time. Others it just doesn't
and they decide like I'm just going to be minorly nauseous,
or they take zofran and drug to kind of, you know,
deal with the side effect. I think doctors at this
(25:27):
conference I was recently at that was focused on obesity,
talked about can we take it intermittently once you hit
your weight plateau, you know, can we take people to
a lower dose. And there is one study that Lily
is running that's like, you know, for a year you're
on the high, you're high dose, and then we're looking
at what happens when some people go to a lower
(25:47):
dose and some people stay in the high dose, and
some people go on placebo. There's a ton of drugs
that are in development that would be less frequently dosed
to their pills and development. You know, we'll see how
well the balance is between tolerance and weight loss and
long term maintenance.
Speaker 6 (26:03):
You know.
Speaker 7 (26:04):
The other thing that people are trying is and you
know TBD on whether it works or not, is switching
people to drugs that are older like q SIMA. This
is a totally different class of weightless drugs that's been
around for a while. Once people hit their plateau, can
they go on one of these cheaper, older drugs and
just maintain? Is that better tolerated? We know those drugs
(26:25):
stop working after a while, but it could help curb
some of the intents hunger some people feel when they
stop taking these drugs.
Speaker 2 (26:33):
And we're talking with Bloomberg opinion columnist Lisa Jarvis about
what doctors want to know about these new weight loss drugs.
What is it that doctors want to know besides how
long do I have to keep my patient on these drugs?
What's the consensus I think.
Speaker 7 (26:48):
Most doctors who are OBC medicine specialists would tell you
got to stay on the drug forever. But they know
that there's like a realism that they need to embed
in that conversation. So they want to know when they're
talking to a who's considering these drugs, like what are
the options for how we can approach them? And then
what are the options for off ramping someone you know?
And so right now it's a lot of trial and error,
(27:10):
and I think sharing information between each other. I don't
think that companies have a lot of incentive to study
what happens, you know, if you can take the drugs
less often, So I think I think, you know, it's
going to be kind of one doctor told me the
art of medicine right now. I think the concern is
that increasingly we're going to see primary care physicians prescribing
(27:30):
these drugs who just aren't going to have the same
kind of information right and know how to tailor them
appropriately to patients. So I think there's going to be
a lot of learning in the next two to three
to four years. Because this is of these rights are
pretty revolutionary. We've talked about them several times before, and
there's still a lot to learn because they're really shaking
(27:53):
up medicine, and.
Speaker 2 (27:55):
They're shaking up more than just medicine, aren't they Fast food,
alcohol memberships, even if you're just going out to eat,
the casual dining industry are all feeling the ripple effects
of the popularity of these drugs.
Speaker 7 (28:09):
It's really pretty astounding to watch because you know, I
think we're all trying to prognosticate and understand the way
that it's going to affect, you know, different industries, the
way we live life. Even you know, when people go
out to eat and they don't want a larger meal,
you know, they can only eat small amounts. What does
that mean for social life? You know, what does it
(28:29):
mean for the alcohol industry. We're all, I think everyone's
trying to read the tea leaves and understand, but it
I do think that until we really get solved the
issue of insurance coverage, understanding how sustainable it is to
be on these drugs for the long term, and some
of the supply issues around you know, just being able
to get the drugs. Until those three things are sorted,
(28:51):
it's going to be hard to really say here's the number,
you know, here's what society looks like, you know, a world
where we have you know, workable OBESD drugs.
Speaker 2 (29:01):
So there is more work to be done. What do
you see coming down the pipe.
Speaker 7 (29:05):
Yeah, we're going to start to see some data on
other drugs. We'll still we'll see more health data on
the two drugs that exist. Munjara Lily's drug is currently
approoved for diabetes and will be approved for OBESD by
the end of this year. But we're seeing other types
of drugs where they combined the receptors that are in
the current drugs with another one to try to you know,
(29:27):
increase the weight loss, have it maybe you know, attenuate
a little bit how quickly you lose the weight, but
then you lose more over longer period of time.
Speaker 5 (29:36):
Maybe some of the.
Speaker 7 (29:37):
Drugs you might be able to take once a month
or once a quarter. So there's a lot of work
being done exploring you know this kind of they all
act on our own natural hormone system, exploring this interplay
between our brain and our gut. So you know, we're
going to continue to see a lot of excitement and
data out of you know, those drugs going forward. You know,
(29:59):
the a I may called obesity a disease you know,
about a decade ago. But I don't think societally we've
shifted our mindset to think of it as that. I
think there's still been so much, you know, blaming the
person rather than kind of it being the biology, you know.
And so I do think that conversation is shifting. I've
(30:20):
seen a shift even just in the last year in
the way these drugs are covered, and so that's also
a work in progress, and we'll see where it ends up.
Speaker 2 (30:29):
Lisa Jarvis is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering biotech, healthcare,
and the pharmaceutical industry. The hottest ticket in Asia Pacific
earlier this fall wasn't for a soccer match or an
NBA exhibition game. People wanted tickets to the metal event
debut of competitive video gaming E sports, the nineteenth Agent
Games are being hailed as an unprecedented success, and there
(30:51):
is an argument to be made about making video game
competitions an Olympic sport. We bring in Bloomberg Opinion columnist
ad a Mentor who covers the business of sports, and Adam,
we know the Olympics are not interested, at least not yet.
But you argue that's a mistake.
Speaker 8 (31:07):
Why, well, it's a huge mistake because around the world,
especially in emerging markets, especially in emerging Asia, esports are
arguably the most popular competitive spectator sport that's out there.
By the estimation of new Zoo, which is a global
esports consultancy, more than five hundred million people watch competitive
(31:30):
esports they stream it. It's a huge, huge audience in Asia.
Just as a point of comparison, during the US Open
this year, there were around three and a half million
people who watched it. During the League of Legends finals,
League of Legends being one of the most popular competitive
video games, you had over five million. So that gives
you a sense of what the audience is just to
(31:51):
watch this stuff. Then you add in the people who
are at home playing these you know, New Zoo estimates
that there are probably three and a half billion competitive
egame esports players out there in the world. Now, this
could be somebody with a gaming council at home. This
could be somebody playing League of Legends on their laptop.
Where could be you or me playing on our phone
while we're talking to each other. Whatever it is, people
(32:12):
out there are interested.
Speaker 2 (32:14):
So with that interest, what is the revenue.
Speaker 8 (32:16):
Well, the revenue is huge, I mean more than one
hundred billion dollars from all the various revenue sources, licensing
of games, competitive esports tournaments. Remember, esports tournaments have sold
out places like Madison Square Garden multiple nights in a
row as far back as twenty sixteen. You know, that's
not on the radar screen of a lot of sports fans,
(32:36):
people who watch the Knicks who also play at the
Madison Square Garden and don't always sell it out. But
for a lot of younger people who are interested in
video games, that's a big moment. Las Vegas has its
own East Sports Arena in Hangzo, China, where this where
the Asian Games took place. They had a custom built
esports arena that can hold over five thousand people, which
(32:58):
is relatively small for in esports arena. If you go
up to Seoul, which is I would argue the esports
capital of the world, they have bigger arenas and they
have multiple So when you look at all these revenue sources,
it's an enormous business. The challenge for people going into
it is that it's still very young and a lot
of it's in emerging markets, so.
Speaker 2 (33:17):
What's the Olympic Committee's beef with it? Why do they
say no, they're inching ever closer to it.
Speaker 8 (33:23):
I mean, they called themselves a sponsor of the Asia
Games E Sports competition. But they have two big issues,
which both of which I think can be overcome. Number
one is Thomas Bach, the president of the IOC, does
not like violence, and he says that if video games
would have to overcome their violent legacy, they're violent present.
To me, it's a little bit ridiculous considering that the
(33:45):
roots of a lot of Olympic sports are warfare. I mean,
what is the javelin? It's throwing a spear, But I'm
not the president of the International Olympic Committee. The second
issue is licensing, and that's a little bit thorn near
because something like Dota, League of Legends, World of Warcraft,
these are very popular games over the years. They are
owned by an entity, they're owned by a game publisher,
(34:06):
and the International Olympic Committee has never really faced this before.
How do you put a sport on at the Olympics
that is owned by somebody else that there's copyrights and
so they'll need to figure out a way to overcome that.
But clearly it's happening because the Asia Games is doing it,
and I think just the reality is the growth and
the money and the popularity of these games makes it
(34:28):
increasingly ridiculous, especially in emerging markets with young people, that
these aren't a part of the Olympics, and so maybe
that would be the way to open the door to
this for the IOC. They're not violent, you know, for
example the soccer games. You know, FIFA is a co sponsor,
they work with people on these. Maybe that would be
the route into the IOC eventually doing this.
Speaker 2 (34:49):
Bloomberg Opinion columnist Adam Mentor covers the business of sports
that does it for this week's Bloomberg Opinion. We are
produced by Eric Mullow, and you can find all of
these columns on the Bloomberg terminal. We're also available as
a podcast on Apple, Spotify or your favorite podcast platform.
Stay with us today's top stories and global business headlines
coming up. I'm Amy Morris. This is Bloomberg
You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast count us Saturdays
at one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com,
the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen
on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Welcome to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris. This week we
look at the bond between parent and child and how
it can sometimes be a little too much. Bloomberg's Alison
Schrager tells us how the kids of so called helicopter
parents are less likely to take risks. We'll also look
at those trendy new weight loss drugs and find out
(00:37):
what doctors are asking. Bloomberg's Lisa Jarvis tells us just
how long do you have to be on them? And
will your weight come back if you stop? Plus the
latest push for a new sport in the Olympics, e
Sports Adam Mentor writes about a strong argument for why
the Olympic Committee might want to consider gaming as a
(00:58):
new Olympic sport. At first, we begin with the return
to the office or lack of it, and the housing
market Now. Earlier this month, Bloomberg's Wall Street week Daily
spoke with Joshua Pristall, head of real estate at Predium.
Speaker 3 (01:13):
What we're seeing is that supply is being destroyed faster
than demand as a result of rising rates, and that's
really a function of what we call the mortgage lock
in effect. So the averaging place mortgage is about three
point six percent interest rate. People can't afford to move
to a smaller house let alone, or larger if their
thirty year mortgage is going to more than double. But
the real solution resides with building more supply. We continue
(01:36):
to see the best value long term in the states
that are in the smile of the country southeast southwest.
Now that doesn't mean that there aren't great opportunities in
other places, but where people are moving and where the
job growth is is generally where there's.
Speaker 4 (01:50):
Not enough housing.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
And that was Joshua Pristall, head of real estate at Predium,
speaking with Bloomberg's Wall Street week Daily earlier this month. Now,
the big migration story of the pandemic was the emptying
out of major US cities. As more employees begin to
return partly or even fully to their offices, people have
started talking about a possible rejuvenation, but not everyone believes
(02:15):
that's going to happen, at least not quite yet. Let's
bring in Bloomberg opinion columnist Connorson, founder of Peachtree Creek Investments,
and Connor, you talk about in your column how major
US cities emptied out during the pandemic, But aren't people
coming back now? Don't you see a rejuvenation coming?
Speaker 5 (02:33):
We certainly have seen a big back to the office movement,
and at least in my circles, it seems like four
days a week with Friday being flex Day, is sort
of the new normal for corporate America. So I think
that for the most part, return of the office has
now played out. And the reason I wanted to write
my column is that we get new Census data in
December for what migration trends look like in twenty twenty three,
and that's going to capture the period between mid twenty
(02:54):
twenty two and mid twenty twenty three when existing home
sales really fell off as mortgage rates rows. And so
my belief, and based on postal service data, is that
it will show that migration really tailed off. So there's
a very little movement away from New York and Chicago
and the West Coast, all the places that lost a
lot of population during COVID, and it's not necessarily due
(03:15):
to back to the office, but just because high mortgage
rates and low home sales mean nobody's moving right now, I.
Speaker 2 (03:21):
Want to get into that. But you said something about
the postal service, and I think it's fascinating how they
were able to track these pandemic migration trends. What was
the system that they used.
Speaker 5 (03:32):
So what they do is, if you ever move, you
can do a change of address request and you don't
have to, but a lot of people do. So it's
sort of a consistent data set over time, and they
look at buy zip code, the number of requests from
a certain zip code and to a certain zip code.
So if you're moving from New York to Miami, maybe
you'll send a request from New York or to Miami,
and so that data is tracked and you can aggregate
(03:54):
that to see sort of a pretty good way of
looking at where people are leaving and moving to over time.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
So they keep track of this using those change of
address forms exactly.
Speaker 5 (04:04):
And so we saw there was a pretty big drop
off from twenty twenty one to twenty twenty two as
the pandemic started to reced people went back to the office,
and then we saw that in the sense of data
a year ago, and then looking at the post service
data we have so far this year, we've seen another
big drop off as the lack of home sales and
people sort of unable to move due to high mortgage
rates has led to another tail off in migration.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
Let's talk about that. The migration slowed as the housing
market sputtered. But the conventional wisdom is that the housing
market will be coming back as people return. You say,
don't hold your breath, Well, I think that.
Speaker 5 (04:38):
I do think housing transactions are going to pick up
because life happens, and most people can't put off a
move for years and years and years. And if it
means eight percent mortgage rates, prices will go down, if
that's what they have to do. And so you know,
it might not be three months and might not be
six months, but over the next two, three five years,
home sales are likely to pick up. And that means
the migration patterns we saw during COVID, maybe not to
(05:00):
the case and destinations, but from the northeast and west
coast to the mountain west and south we'll pick up again.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
So interstate migration and the level of existing home sales
are linked.
Speaker 5 (05:10):
They're connected exactly because for the most part, two thirds
of households or homeowners, if you want to move, you're
selling a house to buy another house. If you're moving
from New York to Florida, you're probably selling a New
York house to buy a Florida house. So if you're
not seeing many home sales, you're not seeing much migration.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
And we're talking with Bloomberg opinion columnist Connorson who tells
us that the exodus from big cities isn't over yet,
but it does Connor, seem like it's on pause. How
long is this pause going to last?
Speaker 5 (05:39):
And that's really where the housing market plays in. So
I think this is important if you're in a Miami
or a place like that, or you're in New York
and you're saying, well, is this the new normal? Did
we have a one off boom in migration during COVID,
Now we got back to the office, Now this is
the new normal? And I don't think it is. I
think that people this was all always set to be
a decade with a lot more migration as millennials agent
(06:01):
their family forming years and wanted more space as baby
boomers were tired and maybe didn't need to live in
the Midwestern Northeast anymore. And then also the ability to
sort of work at least hybrid or remote some of
the time makes it easier to not be in a
big city, at least somewhat easier than it was before.
So I do think we're due for a big migration boom,
but the housing market and mortgage rates right now are
keeping that from happening.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
Let's build on something you just said. Had it not
been for the pandemic, that migration for lack of a
better word, or the exodus from those cities may have
been happening anyway because of the baby boomers, the millennials
in their career Pathsah.
Speaker 5 (06:36):
Yeah, we saw that migration in the late twenty tens
was higher than it was in the early twenty tens,
and part of it was the economy was better as well.
So in the early twenty tens we were still in
the aftermath of the foreclosure crisis. The labor market was
pretty tough and that was holding back migration as well.
So there was sort of some pent up migration from
sort of lack of movement in the early twenty tens,
so it was already starting to pick up. The pandemic
(06:57):
was kind of a one off frenzy, and I think
some of that was maybe likely to be repeated. Like
I don't think that Lake Tahoe will see a boom
of migration going forward. That might have been a remote
work thing, but certainly there's places with cheaper housing and
now more jobs as companies are trying to spread out
where their jobs are nationally, that kind of migration is
going to come back.
Speaker 2 (07:16):
But what about rising interest rates? Would that be enough
to slow them?
Speaker 5 (07:19):
It certainly is for now, and the question is how
long is that going to persist. Most people think that
existing home sales are going to be very low next year.
I think they're going to pick up. We're seeing that
housing inventory is sort of starting to rise at an
unseasonable time of the year, and I think part of
that is just because people decided not to sell their
homes eighteen months ago and sort of the life changed.
Reasons for movement your deaths, divorces, babies, all that, those
(07:43):
are still happening, and maybe you put off the move
for a year eighteen months, but you probably can't do
it for three or five years, and so I do
think we're going to see more inventory like next year,
and more inventory is going to lead to more transactions
as the housing market isn't quite so inventory constrained.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
Because remember last how people were selling their homes at
more than the asking price, and homes would be going
as soon as they're listed, or maybe they wouldn't even
make it to the list at all. They would be
sold just side unseen. I can give you anecdotal, an
anecdote about my aunt retiring, selling her house to her
(08:18):
neighbor who said, I've always wanted your house, I want
it now, and just there it was. It was just
a quick sale. That's not happening as much now. But
do you see that happening again, I mean, was last
summer or one off?
Speaker 5 (08:32):
Well, the wild thing is that obviously affordability is the
worst it's been in forty years right now, and yet
if you still talk to real estate agents, they say
that there are more buyers and sellers because there's so
little inventory out there. So homes that are put on
the market and priced well are still moving quickly, and
if they had more inventory, they would have more sales.
And it doesn't mean prices would go up. I think
(08:52):
when we think about what does the housing market need
right now, it's not higher prices. It's more inventory, more transactions,
more liquidity, And the fact that we're seeing inventory rise
right now suggests that we will see those sort of
beneficial dynamics next year, even if it doesn't mean. I
don't think we're going to see much price growth next year,
but I do think we'll see more transactions.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
It seems like that would be counterintuitive to an exodus.
Then if the home sales are then rising, then wouldn't
you want to go back into the city and go
back toward where your offices are Or has that dynamic
been completely changed in our own minds by what we
went through with the pandemic.
Speaker 5 (09:28):
Well, I think the reason why people move to New
York tends to be young people moving for jobs and
immigrants moving to the US, and the people leaving New
York tends to be retirees and people moving out for
more space. So it gets to why people move to
certain places, and so sort of, if the housing market
is more liquid, it lets people sell their homes and
move out of the places where people tend to move
(09:48):
away from. When the sort of that kind of pattern
of migration.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
So what are you looking for in the next few months?
Then what should we watch for?
Speaker 5 (09:58):
So I am focused most primarily on inventory because I
think inventory will lead to sales and if we see
that sort of flywheel kick in. And part of it too,
is that if you want to move, sometimes you can't
move if there isn't a home for you to buy.
So if there's more inventory, not only can you find
something to buy, but that late makes you able to
sell as well. And if we get that flywheel dynamic
of more inventory, more transactions, that I will sort of
(10:20):
project that migration is going to pick up again. And
seeing which places are the new hotspots for migration in
this sort of post COVID new normal.
Speaker 2 (10:27):
Got any idea what those hot spots might be.
Speaker 5 (10:31):
Too? So I think it's toughest because yeah, it's the
price of movements have been so extreme, like you sell
the booms busts and Boise and Austin and Miami, and
so I think we need to see things settle out
a little bit more until we know for sure.
Speaker 2 (10:43):
Okay, thank you Connor.
Speaker 3 (10:45):
Thanks.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
Amy Connorson is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist and founder of
Peachtree Creek Investments. Now coming up, we'll look at the
bond between child and parent and how sometimes it might
be a good eye to loosen those apron strings a bit.
You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast cotch us Saturdays
at one and seven pm Eastern.
Speaker 6 (11:17):
On Bloomberg dot com, the iHeartRadio app and the Bloomberg
Business app, or listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris. You know
parents are spending more time than ever with their kids.
In nearly every wealthy country, the parent child together time
has steadily increased, and this hyper attention might actually be
harmful to children. Bloomberg Opinion columnist Alison Sriger covers economics
and joins us with some insight. Now, Allison, we've heard
(11:47):
all the stories about how gen X is the last
of the free range kids. You stay outside, you play
all day, you go home before the street lights come on,
you drink from the hose. I know you've heard all
the stories. There is something to be said, though, for
parents who do spend more time with their kids than
maybe we got when we were kids. How can that
be bad?
Speaker 4 (12:06):
Well, in some ways, there are a lot of benefits.
I mean, the evidence is somewhat mixed, but I mean
there's no doubt that kids are safer, They're less likely
to die in accidents and things like that. And you know,
I think, you know, there is evidence that parents who
can you know, who can spend more time engaging with
their kids do do well for developmental reasons. But I mean,
they're diminishing returns to the fact it could even be harmful.
(12:28):
And I think, you know, there was a recent paper
that came out in the journal Pediatrics sort of suggesting
that this might be one of the reasons why kids
are also a lot more emotionally anxious and depressed, because
you know, spending time on your own as a child
is really important developmentally. It's how you develop like a
sense of control over your environment. It's how you develop
(12:48):
independence and ability to resolve conflicts. All these things are
really important to your development. And you know this this
article came out and just for another my book project,
I happen to be speaking to a lot of people
about this already, and I was speaking to a professor
at Georgetown a psychology professor, and her work says there's
something called the age of release, which sounds really like
(13:11):
you're get In fact, when I was googling it to
try to find her work, I kept finding things about prison.
But this is actually a psychological term for children for
when you're allowed to sort of roam free, or at
least go places by your own or unsupervised. And she
finds that your age of release actually is very indicative
of your ability to take risks when you're older, your
(13:31):
ability to handle setbacks. And as I said it, like
the age of release, she says, is ticked up over
the years, six or seven years to the point where
the age of release, you know, I don't know. I
kind of had a loose parents, so I had a
very early age of release, even compared to other people,
even for people of my generation. Sure, but so I
was like six or seven, but like now it's like fourteen.
Speaker 2 (13:52):
Wow. And let's just clarify because I picked up on
that in your column, the age of release, And that's
sort of like when you're first allowed to go to
a sleepover or maybe walk to school by yourself, or
do those things that are unsupervised. That seem like a
rite of passage. When you are as young as six.
I think I was maybe seven or eight perhaps when
that time came along, was just pretty normal. But you're
(14:14):
saying now, it doesn't happen until they're in their teen years.
Speaker 4 (14:17):
Yeah, And she was telling me how she asked her
class recently, how old were you when you were allowed
to play unsupervised? And they're just like, we were too
old to play by the time we were unsupervised. It's
just sad.
Speaker 2 (14:30):
Wow, that's rough. And so the point of all of this,
and the point of that article you were referencing, is
that if you're not allowed to play unsupervised by a
certain time, then you're missing out on that developmental gift
that gives you to be able, to what reason, be
comfortable in your own skin, be comfortable on your own
(14:51):
What is it you're missing?
Speaker 4 (14:52):
Well, kin, this is it. I mean at the Journal
Pediatrics article talked a lot about how it might be
contributing to depression and anxiety. Talking to the press or Georgetown,
we are talking more about your comfort with risk taking.
And her research is finding you know, she's comparing across
different countries and found that like kids with later ages
of release were just like more fearful and less comfortable
(15:14):
with risk taking. She found like over the years her
Georgetown students, you know, found like she'd be like, explain
the last time you were scared or you're an intense situation,
and they'd describe things that used to not even register
and they're more like some of them won't even leave campus,
they won't take public transportation. So it ends up really
having this impact on your comfort with the world and
(15:36):
comfort with risk, you know, for the rest of your life.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
Now, when these kids grow up, how will this childhood
and how they spent it manifest itself in the workplace.
Speaker 4 (15:46):
Well, I mean I personally, I mean it's hard to
prove empirically, but I suspect it might be. Were been
seeing an overall decline in risk taking for young adults, certainly,
like despite all the hype and we hear about less
job changing, less moving, less, lower rates of entrepreneurship, you know,
on you know, all sort of things that require you
(16:08):
to be have some comfort with ambiguity and uncertainty. And
I suspect those things might be related, like being raised
with less comfort with risk and then taking less economic
risk and perhaps even emotional risk. When I was doing
I said the book research, you know, even like, you know,
there's all these reports that young people are less likely
to form relationships or even date anyway. You know, it's
(16:31):
so much easier to meet people with apps and whatnot.
And you know a lot of surveys people said, what
is your fear about dating? And they're like, it feels risky.
And when I was talking to some professors about this too,
they're just like they're talking about like I assume they
meant risk, like emotional risk. You might get hurt, you
might get rejected, and that's scary. And she was like, no,
They're like, well, I could end up talking to someone
and it could feel awkward. They're like, or like this
(16:52):
conversation stalling, or like all these very human things.
Speaker 2 (16:55):
Wow, And we are talking the Bloomberg opinion columnist Allison Schreker,
who who has a column on the Bloomberg Terminal about
how perhaps American parents should teach their kids more about
taking risks. And Alison, how is it parents are able
to spend more time with their kids now compared to say,
in the nineteen sixties, when not everybody was working.
Speaker 4 (17:17):
It's fascinating to me, we're spending so much time with
kids because they compared to the sixties. Because women were
like housewives in the sixties and now most we're in
the labor force. Where's this time coming from? And I mean,
I suspect it's also like in the sixties they also
to spend a lot more time doing housework because they
didn't have the same technology. It's a big cultural shift
that we're seeing. And also it could be that, you know,
(17:41):
people are having fewer children, they also have more money,
so they just you know, I've read studies that's found
like a lot of people when they're trying to delve
into why people spend more time with their kids, and
one of the big things that kept coming up is
people just enjoy their kids. You know, maybe in the sixties,
when you had like a million chores to do to
also take care of your kids, felt like not that
people didn't love the kids, but it felt like this
(18:01):
extra burden. And now that I guess we're richer and
live more comfortable lives, people are just relishing time with
their kids more, which is nice in a lot of ways.
And you are noticing, like you observe, people complain about
this a lot and developmenttally, I don't know how healthy
it is that people seem to be friends with their
kids all through high school and college. It's not like
when we were young, where we would just like go
to college not speak to our parents for three weeks
(18:23):
and it's nice. I guess in some ways they're like
friends with their parents and don't have this period of
individuation where they barely speak to them, even though developmentally
that might have some value.
Speaker 2 (18:32):
The flip side of this coin, though, is that parents
got to be facing a lot of pressure when it
comes to being involved in their kids' lives. The pressure
that the kids are feeling to be able to excel
and achieve and to win and to push themselves. The
parents are feeling similar pressure as well when it comes
to being the best parent ever. And that's going to
mean spending more time with the kids.
Speaker 4 (18:52):
Yeah. I mean, you see surveys where parents are like,
my kid would really benefit from more alone time, but
when everyone else is and there's a lot of social shame,
and also it feels like a very economically cutthroat environment.
I'm actually sure that's true, but certainly that's the perception.
It's amazing to me that so many parents, like every
parent I know spends a lot of time with their
kids on their homework. Like, my parents never got involved
(19:14):
in my homework.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
God, I don't think my parents knew what classes I
was taking.
Speaker 4 (19:19):
Yeah, so it's like if I wrote, if I had
like a bad homework assignment and I got a bad grade,
that was like my problem to bear, that's on you. Yeah,
But like people like with kids, like you know, they
feel like they've got to like be involved in their kids' homework,
which is very time consuming and I honestly can't imagine enjoyable.
(19:39):
But I think it is feeling like I've got to
give my kid every shot. They've got to like do
as well as they can in school. And you know,
whether or not that's really true, or whether or not
that's really correlated with emotional well being. Like I think
there's also a lot of correlation between anxiety and depression
in top colleges, So I mean there's that, So I mean,
maybe it's not worth it, but I think that's also
(20:01):
part of it. Is it feels like there's this rat
race and you have to give your kid every advantage,
and that involves this of sort of hyper concentrated attention
on them.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
Bloomberg Opinion columnist Alison Schreger covers economics now coming up.
Weight loss drugs are all the rage, but there are
some pressing questions like how long do you have to
take them? And will the weight come back when you stop?
And don't forget. We're available as a podcast on Apple,
Spotify or your favorite podcast platform. This is Bloomberg Opinion.
Speaker 1 (20:39):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast coutch Us Saturdays
at one and seven pm Eastern.
Speaker 6 (20:45):
On Bloomberg dot Com, the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg
Business App, or listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
This is Bloomberg Opinion. I Mami Morris. Obesity Week used
to be a quiet, annual meeting of weight loss specialists
and a few farmer reps, but not this year. There's
a new family of weight loss drugs available, and these
new drugs are changing everything. Even teenagers are interested in
getting their hands on the drugs. Seventeen year old Emma
Leah Zumo was part of the drug trial and found
(21:17):
dramatic results.
Speaker 6 (21:18):
I was really excited that there was a chance to
help me and maybe help me lose weight and finally get.
Speaker 7 (21:24):
A control on something that's been uncontrollable my whole life,
and also help other girls like me.
Speaker 2 (21:28):
On the other hand, doctor Veronica Johnson with Northwestern Medicine
says there is also a risk of using off brand
versions of these drugs.
Speaker 8 (21:36):
If a patient elects to use a compounded form of
the medication, we cannot guarantee what's actually in that drug.
Speaker 2 (21:46):
Let's get some insight now from Bloomberg opinion columnist Lisa Jarvis,
who covers biotech, healthcare and the pharmaceutical industry. Lisa, always
a pleasure. We've talked about these drugs before, you and
I and I have asked you before how long is
a person going to have to take these drugs? And
then what happens when you stop?
Speaker 4 (22:06):
Right?
Speaker 7 (22:06):
So you know, right now forever, it's sort of the
message around you know, how long you're going to have
to take these drugs? Because the studies that were conducted
to get the drugs approved, you know, they've shown they've
kept some people on the drug and given people placebo
after they've been on it for a year, and you
can see the downward you know, curve stays the same
(22:27):
for the people who keep on the drug, and the
people who are given a placebo gain their weight back,
not necessarily all of it, but most of it over
the course of the next year. So, you know, I
think for long term health effects, the realistic answer is forever,
but the kind of practical answer is maybe not. I
(22:47):
think that's a thing that's been explored among doctors right now,
not necessarily in clinical trials, but in the real life setting.
In some cases they've had to explore it because of
the drug shortages and the cost of the drug. So
many people are paying for these out of pocket that
they simply can't afford them anymore and they have to
stop taking them. So it's a thing that's a subject
(23:07):
of a lot of conversation in the OPCD medicine field.
Speaker 2 (23:11):
Are we also learning more now about what side effects
these drugs may bring on.
Speaker 7 (23:17):
I know there's some things that we're learning that are
getting some media attention that we're known but as many
many people take them. For example, there's a thing called
gastroparesis where it's very rare, but essentially the drugs keep
you feeling full in part by your stomach is actually
full for longer you empty it. Takes you a lot
(23:38):
longer to empty your stomach. Some people have their stomachs
aren't emptying, and so that can be dangerous. That's in
a very rare, very very rare cases, and you want
to know about that when people are on the drugs
because of that, if, for example, you were in an
accident and you needed to get surgery, your antithesiologist needs
(23:59):
to know that you around these drugs because that means
your stomach might be fuller than someone who hadn't eaten recently.
Speaker 2 (24:06):
Other than the weight loss, obviously, what side benefits are there.
Speaker 7 (24:09):
That's the thing that's kind of exciting about these drugs.
We've seen studies already that companies are running dozens and
dozens of trials to try to prove that there are
health benefits outside of the way, And already we know
with we GOV that it can lower the risk of
heart disease, heart attacks, and strokes. They stopped a trial
early recently around chronic kidney disease. So I think we're
(24:30):
just going to see more of these unfold and then
that helps us, you know, to kind of form an
argument around the societal cost of the drugs versus the benefits.
Speaker 2 (24:40):
So we're very early into this weight loss drug stage
where we are seeing that there are benefits and that
there are some side effects, but that for the most part,
it is doing what is supposed to do, which is
help you lose weight. Is there a way to change
the formula? Do you see some evolution there the dosed,
the frequency to help tailor the drug to the patient.
Speaker 7 (25:05):
Yeah, I think a lot of that experimenting is happening
because you know, one side effect is that it makes
people nauseous, you know, I mean, I think that's one
that some people decide they're going to tolerate. For some
people it goes away over time. Others it just doesn't
and they decide like I'm just going to be minorly nauseous,
or they take zofran and drug to kind of, you know,
deal with the side effect. I think doctors at this
(25:27):
conference I was recently at that was focused on obesity,
talked about can we take it intermittently once you hit
your weight plateau, you know, can we take people to
a lower dose. And there is one study that Lily
is running that's like, you know, for a year you're
on the high, you're high dose, and then we're looking
at what happens when some people go to a lower
(25:47):
dose and some people stay in the high dose, and
some people go on placebo. There's a ton of drugs
that are in development that would be less frequently dosed
to their pills and development. You know, we'll see how
well the balance is between tolerance and weight loss and
long term maintenance.
Speaker 6 (26:03):
You know.
Speaker 7 (26:04):
The other thing that people are trying is and you
know TBD on whether it works or not, is switching
people to drugs that are older like q SIMA. This
is a totally different class of weightless drugs that's been
around for a while. Once people hit their plateau, can
they go on one of these cheaper, older drugs and
just maintain? Is that better tolerated? We know those drugs
(26:25):
stop working after a while, but it could help curb
some of the intents hunger some people feel when they
stop taking these drugs.
Speaker 2 (26:33):
And we're talking with Bloomberg opinion columnist Lisa Jarvis about
what doctors want to know about these new weight loss drugs.
What is it that doctors want to know besides how
long do I have to keep my patient on these drugs?
What's the consensus I think.
Speaker 7 (26:48):
Most doctors who are OBC medicine specialists would tell you
got to stay on the drug forever. But they know
that there's like a realism that they need to embed
in that conversation. So they want to know when they're
talking to a who's considering these drugs, like what are
the options for how we can approach them? And then
what are the options for off ramping someone you know?
And so right now it's a lot of trial and error,
(27:10):
and I think sharing information between each other. I don't
think that companies have a lot of incentive to study
what happens, you know, if you can take the drugs
less often, So I think I think, you know, it's
going to be kind of one doctor told me the
art of medicine right now. I think the concern is
that increasingly we're going to see primary care physicians prescribing
(27:30):
these drugs who just aren't going to have the same
kind of information right and know how to tailor them
appropriately to patients. So I think there's going to be
a lot of learning in the next two to three
to four years. Because this is of these rights are
pretty revolutionary. We've talked about them several times before, and
there's still a lot to learn because they're really shaking
(27:53):
up medicine, and.
Speaker 2 (27:55):
They're shaking up more than just medicine, aren't they Fast food,
alcohol memberships, even if you're just going out to eat,
the casual dining industry are all feeling the ripple effects
of the popularity of these drugs.
Speaker 7 (28:09):
It's really pretty astounding to watch because you know, I
think we're all trying to prognosticate and understand the way
that it's going to affect, you know, different industries, the
way we live life. Even you know, when people go
out to eat and they don't want a larger meal,
you know, they can only eat small amounts. What does
that mean for social life? You know, what does it
(28:29):
mean for the alcohol industry. We're all, I think everyone's
trying to read the tea leaves and understand, but it
I do think that until we really get solved the
issue of insurance coverage, understanding how sustainable it is to
be on these drugs for the long term, and some
of the supply issues around you know, just being able
to get the drugs. Until those three things are sorted,
(28:51):
it's going to be hard to really say here's the number,
you know, here's what society looks like, you know, a world
where we have you know, workable OBESD drugs.
Speaker 2 (29:01):
So there is more work to be done. What do
you see coming down the pipe.
Speaker 7 (29:05):
Yeah, we're going to start to see some data on
other drugs. We'll still we'll see more health data on
the two drugs that exist. Munjara Lily's drug is currently
approoved for diabetes and will be approved for OBESD by
the end of this year. But we're seeing other types
of drugs where they combined the receptors that are in
the current drugs with another one to try to you know,
(29:27):
increase the weight loss, have it maybe you know, attenuate
a little bit how quickly you lose the weight, but
then you lose more over longer period of time.
Speaker 5 (29:36):
Maybe some of the.
Speaker 7 (29:37):
Drugs you might be able to take once a month
or once a quarter. So there's a lot of work
being done exploring you know this kind of they all
act on our own natural hormone system, exploring this interplay
between our brain and our gut. So you know, we're
going to continue to see a lot of excitement and
data out of you know, those drugs going forward. You know,
(29:59):
the a I may called obesity a disease you know,
about a decade ago. But I don't think societally we've
shifted our mindset to think of it as that. I
think there's still been so much, you know, blaming the
person rather than kind of it being the biology, you know.
And so I do think that conversation is shifting. I've
(30:20):
seen a shift even just in the last year in
the way these drugs are covered, and so that's also
a work in progress, and we'll see where it ends up.
Speaker 2 (30:29):
Lisa Jarvis is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering biotech, healthcare,
and the pharmaceutical industry. The hottest ticket in Asia Pacific
earlier this fall wasn't for a soccer match or an
NBA exhibition game. People wanted tickets to the metal event
debut of competitive video gaming E sports, the nineteenth Agent
Games are being hailed as an unprecedented success, and there
(30:51):
is an argument to be made about making video game
competitions an Olympic sport. We bring in Bloomberg Opinion columnist
ad a Mentor who covers the business of sports, and Adam,
we know the Olympics are not interested, at least not yet.
But you argue that's a mistake.
Speaker 8 (31:07):
Why, well, it's a huge mistake because around the world,
especially in emerging markets, especially in emerging Asia, esports are
arguably the most popular competitive spectator sport that's out there.
By the estimation of new Zoo, which is a global
esports consultancy, more than five hundred million people watch competitive
(31:30):
esports they stream it. It's a huge, huge audience in Asia.
Just as a point of comparison, during the US Open
this year, there were around three and a half million
people who watched it. During the League of Legends finals,
League of Legends being one of the most popular competitive
video games, you had over five million. So that gives
you a sense of what the audience is just to
(31:51):
watch this stuff. Then you add in the people who
are at home playing these you know, New Zoo estimates
that there are probably three and a half billion competitive
egame esports players out there in the world. Now, this
could be somebody with a gaming council at home. This
could be somebody playing League of Legends on their laptop.
Where could be you or me playing on our phone
while we're talking to each other. Whatever it is, people
(32:12):
out there are interested.
Speaker 2 (32:14):
So with that interest, what is the revenue.
Speaker 8 (32:16):
Well, the revenue is huge, I mean more than one
hundred billion dollars from all the various revenue sources, licensing
of games, competitive esports tournaments. Remember, esports tournaments have sold
out places like Madison Square Garden multiple nights in a
row as far back as twenty sixteen. You know, that's
not on the radar screen of a lot of sports fans,
(32:36):
people who watch the Knicks who also play at the
Madison Square Garden and don't always sell it out. But
for a lot of younger people who are interested in
video games, that's a big moment. Las Vegas has its
own East Sports Arena in Hangzo, China, where this where
the Asian Games took place. They had a custom built
esports arena that can hold over five thousand people, which
(32:58):
is relatively small for in esports arena. If you go
up to Seoul, which is I would argue the esports
capital of the world, they have bigger arenas and they
have multiple So when you look at all these revenue sources,
it's an enormous business. The challenge for people going into
it is that it's still very young and a lot
of it's in emerging markets, so.
Speaker 2 (33:17):
What's the Olympic Committee's beef with it? Why do they
say no, they're inching ever closer to it.
Speaker 8 (33:23):
I mean, they called themselves a sponsor of the Asia
Games E Sports competition. But they have two big issues,
which both of which I think can be overcome. Number
one is Thomas Bach, the president of the IOC, does
not like violence, and he says that if video games
would have to overcome their violent legacy, they're violent present.
To me, it's a little bit ridiculous considering that the
(33:45):
roots of a lot of Olympic sports are warfare. I mean,
what is the javelin? It's throwing a spear, But I'm
not the president of the International Olympic Committee. The second
issue is licensing, and that's a little bit thorn near
because something like Dota, League of Legends, World of Warcraft,
these are very popular games over the years. They are
owned by an entity, they're owned by a game publisher,
(34:06):
and the International Olympic Committee has never really faced this before.
How do you put a sport on at the Olympics
that is owned by somebody else that there's copyrights and
so they'll need to figure out a way to overcome that.
But clearly it's happening because the Asia Games is doing it,
and I think just the reality is the growth and
the money and the popularity of these games makes it
(34:28):
increasingly ridiculous, especially in emerging markets with young people, that
these aren't a part of the Olympics, and so maybe
that would be the way to open the door to
this for the IOC. They're not violent, you know, for
example the soccer games. You know, FIFA is a co sponsor,
they work with people on these. Maybe that would be
the route into the IOC eventually doing this.
Speaker 2 (34:49):
Bloomberg Opinion columnist Adam Mentor covers the business of sports
that does it for this week's Bloomberg Opinion. We are
produced by Eric Mullow, and you can find all of
these columns on the Bloomberg terminal. We're also available as
a podcast on Apple, Spotify or your favorite podcast platform.
Stay with us today's top stories and global business headlines
coming up. I'm Amy Morris. This is Bloomberg
Host
Vonnie Quinn
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Boysober
Have you ever wondered what life might be like if you stopped worrying about being wanted, and focused on understanding what you actually want? That was the question Hope Woodard asked herself after a string of situationships inspired her to take a break from sex and dating. She went "boysober," a personal concept that sparked a global movement among women looking to prioritize themselves over men. Now, Hope is looking to expand the ways we explore our relationship to relationships. Taking a bold, unfiltered look into modern love, romance, and self-discovery, Boysober will dive into messy stories about dating, sex, love, friendship, and breaking generational patterns—all with humor, vulnerability, and a fresh perspective.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com