Fixing the American Dream with Andrew Schulz

As of November 30, 2025, no fertility clinic is routinely offering IVF using human egg cells derived from a patient’s somatic cells (e.g., skin cells) via in‑vitro gametogenesis (IVG) in clinical practice. Research groups have generated functional egg and sperm cells from somatic or pluripotent cells in mice and other animals, and human IVG has advanced in vitro (e.g., creating primordial germ cell–like cells and early gamete precursors), but no approved, routine clinical IVF protocol exists yet for producing fully functional human eggs from skin cells and using them in patients.

However, the normalized prediction is explicitly about what will be routine "by roughly the late 2020s". The current date is still only 2025, so the time window for the prediction (late 2020s ≈ 2027–2029) has not arrived. Because we cannot yet observe whether this will become routine by that future period, the correctness of the prediction cannot be determined at this time.

Therefore, the appropriate status is: it is too early to tell whether his forecast about late‑2020s routine clinic use will prove right or wrong.

As of 30 November 2025, the time window specified by the prediction (“in the next couple of years” / “by the late 2020s”) has not yet elapsed, so it is too early to know whether IVF will in fact become significantly simpler, less invasive, and much more widely available than in early 2025.

Current scientific progress supports that we are still in an early, experimental phase:

• In 2025, scientists for the first time turned human skin cells into egg-like cells that could be fertilised, a key in‑vitro gametogenesis (IVG) milestone. However, the embryos showed many abnormalities, and researchers stress this is only proof‑of‑concept and estimate that such lab‑generated eggs are at least a decade away from being widely available as a treatment. (tribune.com.pk)
• The UK fertility regulator similarly concluded in 2025 that lab‑grown eggs and sperm are on the brink of viability as a research technology, but clinical use is still expected to be up to a decade away, not something available broadly in the mid‑2020s. (theguardian.com)

Because (1) the forecast’s horizon extends into the late 2020s, and (2) we are only partway through that period, with the decisive technologies (like lab‑generated eggs) not yet clinically deployed, the correct judgment as of now is inconclusive rather than right or wrong.

Howard Lutnick, serving as Commerce Secretary in Trump’s second term, publicly said Trump’s goal was no federal tax for anyone making under $150,000, and media coverage described this as an aspirational tax plan, not an enacted policy. (newsweek.com)

However, the major tax legislation actually passed under the new Trump administration so far is the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), signed July 4, 2025. That law extends and tweaks the existing individual income tax system (originally set by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act), adds targeted deductions (e.g., for tips, overtime, some car-loan interest, and certain seniors), but it does not set the federal income tax rate to 0 percent for people earning $150,000 or less. (en.wikipedia.org)

The IRS rate schedules for the 2025 tax year still show positive marginal income-tax rates starting at 10 percent, with higher brackets above that, and the IRS’s released brackets for 2026 likewise remain a normal progressive system; there is no blanket 0 percent federal income tax rate for all taxpayers at or below $150,000 in any filing status. (en.wikipedia.org)

Because, as of November 30, 2025, no law or regulation has been implemented that actually reduces federal income tax to 0 percent for all U.S. taxpayers earning $150,000 per year or less, the prediction that such a Trump tax plan would be implemented as described is wrong.

As of November 30, 2025, the large nationwide housing crash Chamath described has not occurred, but his time horizon (“the next phase of the cycle”) is vague enough that it could still play out in coming years.

Key facts:

• U.S. homeowners currently sit on roughly $34–36 trillion in home equity, an all‑time or near‑all‑time high, according to Federal Reserve–based estimates and industry analyses. One summary notes home equity at over $35 trillion as of March 2025, another puts it at about $34.5 trillion in 2025, and a Mortgage Bankers Association forecast says homeowners have accumulated about $36 trillion in equity. (en.wikipedia.org)
• For homeowners with mortgages (a subset of all homeowners), total net equity in Q2 2025 was about $17.5 trillion, with equity down only 0.8% year‑over‑year—a reduction of about $141.5 billion, not “trillions.” (themortgagepoint.com)
• National home‑price indexes show slowing growth and some real (inflation‑adjusted) erosion, but not a major nominal crash. The S&P CoreLogic Case‑Shiller National Index reported a 3.4% year‑over‑year gain in March 2025, and later data show prices still up about 1.3–1.5% year‑over‑year by late summer/early fall 2025, even though that growth now lags inflation. (spglobal.com)
• FHFA’s own house‑price data for Q3 2025 show about a 3.3% year‑over‑year price increase, which is why it raised conforming loan limits for 2026—again indicating slower appreciation, not a collapse in values. (apnews.com)
• Equity markets did experience a sharp but brief selloff in early April 2025 tied to broad tariff hikes, temporarily erasing more than $3 trillion in stock‑market value, but major indexes recovered by mid‑May. (en.wikipedia.org) That episode has so far not been followed by a housing crash of the magnitude Chamath described.

Putting this together, U.S. housing is clearly cooling: price growth has nearly stalled in nominal terms, some metros have begun to see outright declines, and mortgage‑borrower equity ticked down slightly. But nationwide housing wealth is still near record highs, and the observed pullback has erased hundreds of billions, not trillions, of dollars of housing wealth. That means Chamath’s specific scenario (a “major downward correction” that “whacks” the housing market and wipes out trillions in wealth) has not yet happened.

However, because he did not give a specific deadline and framed it as the “next phase of the cycle,” it remains possible that a deeper correction could occur beyond November 2025. Since the absence of such a crash by this date does not conclusively falsify a cycle‑phase prediction with an open time horizon, the fairest classification today is inconclusive (too early) rather than definitively “wrong.”

Available housing data since the March 15, 2025 episode show that average U.S. home prices have not fallen anywhere near 30–40% from their recent peak; in fact, major national indexes are still slightly up year‑over‑year:

• The FHFA House Price Index shows U.S. house prices up 2.2% year‑over‑year in Q3 2025, with a 0.2% quarterly increase, not a large decline. (fhfa.gov)
• FHFA’s monthly data for August 2025 show prices up 0.4% month‑over‑month and 2.3% year‑over‑year. (fhfa.gov)
• The S&P CoreLogic Case‑Shiller National Index shows home prices still rising slightly (around 1.3–1.5% year‑over‑year) as of August–September 2025, indicating cooling or flattening, not a crash. (wsj.com)
• FHFA’s increase in conforming loan limits for 2026 is based on a 3.3% rise in home prices from Q3 2024 to Q3 2025, again inconsistent with a major nationwide drawdown. (apnews.com)

In the episode transcript, Chamath talks about home prices being “whacked 30 or 40%” in the context of a broader future housing correction and policy changes, but he does not specify a clear time horizon for when that 30–40% national decline would occur. (speakai.co)

Because (1) as of November 30, 2025 there has been no such 30–40% nationwide drop, but (2) the prediction has no explicit deadline and housing cycles can take years, it is too early to definitively label the prediction as right or wrong. It has clearly not come true yet, but it could still be falsified or fulfilled in the longer term, so the fairest assessment at this time is “inconclusive (too early).”

It’s too early to know whether this prediction is correct or not.

The claim is that, under current law and contribution/benefit patterns, the U.S. Social Security Trust Fund will become insolvent around 2032 ("going to go bankrupt in 2032"). Insolvency here means the trust fund reserves are depleted and the system can no longer pay full scheduled benefits, not that payments stop entirely.

As of November 30, 2025, that future date has not yet arrived, so the trust fund has not become insolvent and no definitive judgment about 2032 can be made.

For context, recent official projections are in the same general time frame but do not exactly match 2032:

• The 2024 Social Security Trustees Report projects that the combined OASDI trust funds will be depleted in the mid‑2030s under current law (with the exact year depending on the report’s assumptions and whether you look at OASI alone or combined OASDI). After depletion, incoming payroll taxes would still cover roughly three‑quarters of scheduled benefits, but not 100%.
• Other analyses (e.g., from the Congressional Budget Office) have at various times projected depletion dates around the early‑to‑mid 2030s as well.

Because (1) the predicted year 2032 is still in the future and (2) projected depletion dates can shift with each new report and policy/economic change, this prediction cannot yet be judged as right or wrong.

As of November 30, 2025, Jason Calacanis has not run for U.S. president. Current biographical and media references describe him as an entrepreneur, angel investor, and podcaster, including co‑hosting the All-In podcast and This Week in Startups, with no mention of any presidential candidacy or official campaign organization.(en.wikipedia.org) He has been politically active mainly as an endorser and donor, for example backing Dean Phillips’s 2024 presidential campaign, but only in a supporter role rather than as a candidate himself.(en.wikipedia.org) In interview settings he has spoken hypothetically about what his platform would be "when I run for president," including a plan to build new tech cities, but these statements remain speculative and are not tied to an actual campaign filing or declared run.(podscripts.co) Because the prediction is explicitly conditional on Calacanis ever running for president, and that condition has not occurred yet, there is no way to determine whether his actual housing platform would match the detailed scenario described. Therefore, the accuracy of the prediction cannot yet be evaluated.

Available biographical and entertainment coverage of Andrew Schulz through late 2025 consistently notes that he and his wife Emma have one child, daughter Shiloh Jean, born in February 2024, with no mention anywhere of additional children.

Examples:

• Recent profiles and interviews describe Schulz as a father to a baby girl or daughter (singular), conceived via IVF, with no reference to more kids.
• Multiple biographical pieces and features on Emma Turner likewise state that the couple "welcomed their first child" Shiloh in February 2024 and do not report any second or third child as of 2025.
• A current encyclopedia-style entry lists one daughter, Shiloh Jean, born February 2024, and does not list any other children.(en.wikipedia.org)

The prediction, however, is that Schulz will go on to have a second and third child at some point in the future. That is an open‑ended, forward‑looking claim. As of November 30, 2025, it has not come true (he still has only one publicly known child), but it also has not been falsified, because more children could still be born later.

Because the claim is about an event that could still occur in the future and there is no way yet to know whether it ultimately will or won’t happen, the correct status is **“inconclusive (too early)” rather than “right” or “wrong.”