Author: openjargon

• Universal basic income is quickly evolving from a fantastical idea into economic reality.
• Several countries are testing it and figures like Elon Musk and MrBeast have endorsed the concept.
• Here's an in-depth look at UBI, its origins, and its major benefits and costs.

Universal basic income has made giant strides from its origins as a utopian vision toward becoming economic reality.

Basic income trials have been conducted in countries as varied as Kenya, Finland, India, and Canada. Tesla's Elon Musk, YouTube star MrBeast, and former Labor Secretary Robert Reich are among the high-profile champions of the concept.

Yet the idea of handing out money with no strings attached strikes many people as alien, questionable, or even just plain wrong.

Here's a closer look at UBI, its history, and its potential advantages and possible downsides.

What is UBI?

A universal basic income is generally defined as a recurring cash payment to all individuals in a population regardless of their wealth, with no restrictions on how the money is spent and no repayment expected.

Experiments have been relatively small-scale, and many have targeted lower-income populations rather than everyone to keep costs down, garner political support, and maximize the payments' impact on poverty.

Where did the idea come from?

People have proposed variations of UBI since at least the 1500s, when Spanish humanist Juan Luis Vives called for everyone to be given food even if they'd gambled away their money, as he believed nobody should die of hunger.

American revolutionary Thomas Paine proposed a national fund in 1797 that would pay some money to citizens every year after they turned 21.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. touted the concept in 1967. The civil rights leader hailed it as a tool to redress historical racial discrimination and temper widespread poverty and unemployment in the Black community.

Legendary economist and free market champion Milton Friedman defended a similar idea: a negative income tax. He said it might help the poor without distorting the market, and lessen the government's role in determining who deserves support.

The list of proponents has expanded in recent years to include Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, technocrat Andrew Yang, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, and many other high-profile individuals.

What's the point of UBI?

Proponents of UBI say it reduces poverty, strengthens the social safety net, promotes health and happiness, and combats the stigma around welfare.

Simply giving people money can help them to afford basics like groceries, clothing, shelter, and transportation. Covering the costs of daily life has only grown harder in recent years, as food, fuel, and rent inflation has jumped to 40-year highs, and credit card, car loan, and mortgage payments have ballooned due to surging interest rates.

A guaranteed income can also give people the confidence, security, and freedom to know they won't starve or be evicted if they lose their jobs or quit. They might want to start a business, stay at home to raise their children, care for relatives, invest in training or education, or manage a sickness or disability.

Regular cash payments may help to relieve the stress and worry of paying bills, saving for college or retirement, or losing access to means-tested support. Basic income recipients in a Finnish trial reported higher life satisfaction, improved health, and lower levels of depression and loneliness.

Making universal payments might also lessen the stigma around receiving government benefits, avoid some of the costs and mistakes of administering means-tested support, and provide a safety net for the wealthy if they run into financial trouble.

As for Musk and other technologists, they predict that artificial intelligence will render millions of workers obsolete, making it necessary to provide a basic income for those out of work to survive.

What do critics say?

Critics say that UBI erodes the incentive to work, encouraging laziness and idleness. They also warn that recipients might waste the money on shopping, vacations, gambling, liquor, cigarettes, or drugs.

Other skeptics question why wealthy people should receive money they don't need, and caution that paying it for it would require higher taxes or budget cuts.

Dave Ramsey has criticized the concept as "straight out of the Karl Marx playbook." The personal finance guru and radio host bemoaned that people build character by overcoming challenges instead of getting bailed out.

It's quite possible that UBI saps work ethic. But it might also lead to higher wages, job satisfaction, and productivity, as people could afford to be more picky about employment and hold out for better pay.

How do supporters respond?

Regarding how the money is spent, UBI fans say that's not a serious concern.

"The evidence from trials is that participants tend to spend most of the money received on the basic needs of everyday life," Jack Kellam, the head of operations at Autonomy, told Business Insider.

Moreover, an analysis of 30 pilot programs in the US involving nearly 8,300 participants found more than half the cash grants went toward food and groceries, transportation, housing, utilities, healthcare, and education.

Other experts say people's spending shouldn't be scrutinized. Douglas MacKay, an associate professor of public policy at UNC-Chapel Hill, told BI that trying to control spending is "paternalistic" and fails to treat recipients with dignity — as adults and equals who are "fully capable of governing their own lives."

Moreover, there's strong evidence that poorer people don't use drugs, alcohol, or tobacco at higher rates than wealthy people, and drug addiction is often triggered by mental illnesses like depression.

"To the extent that UBI relieves people from misery, we should expect it would decrease 'vice' spending," Karl Widerquist, a philosophy professor at Georgetown University-Qatar and the author of several books about UBI, told BI.

As for the rich getting richer and the question of funding, Kellam said that most UBI advocates envision it alongside a more progressive tax system.

"Many of the wealthiest individuals would be 'net' losers in the system: though they receive payments, because they would be taxed more, they would overall be less well off," he told BI.

An open question

Universal basic income remains a largely theoretical idea that could have significant — and unpredictable — impacts on wealth inequality, human welfare, labor markets, and entire economies.

But tests and trials at different scales and across myriad countries and contexts are putting the concept through its paces, and promise to reveal whether it's an effective way to combat poverty, fight stigmas, deal with AI, and help people live healthier, happier, and more stable lives.

• AI makes it easier than ever to spread misinformation and disinformation on social media. 
• Legal experts argue real change can only happen through new laws or the social media companies themselves.
• One expert called for amending an internet law that protects social media companies from civil liability. 

In the age of generative artificial intelligence, the public is arguably more susceptible than ever to fall victim to disinformation and misinformation on social media.

It's on social media platforms where disinformation and misinformation runs rampant. You can almost bet on it that any time major events become part of the public conversation, digital falsehoods swiftly circulate. Think of the COVID-19 pandemic and both the 2016 and 2020 United States presidential election cycles.

AI-generated so-called deepfakes are only exacerbating the problem and making it easier than ever to spread disinformation and misinformation via social media.

Legal experts told Business Insider that the only real way to combat misinformation and disinformation on social media is through the creation of new federal laws or the tech companies behind the platforms voluntarily ramping up their own self-regulation.

"AI means it's not just going to be words" that disseminate false information on social media, it's going to be videos and photos and audio recordings," said Barbara McQuade, a former US attorney and author of the book, "Attack From Within: How Disinformation Is Sabotaging America."

McQuade, a professor at the University of Michigan law school believes there needs to be new laws on the books to address this issue because "this is new technology that didn't previously exist."

"We may be reaching a point of awareness where people are beginning to understand the risk and the danger of it," McQuade said.

A recent federal assessment compiled by the US Department of Homeland Security warned of the threats AI poses to America's 2024 presidential election.

"As the 2024 election cycle progresses, generative AI tools likely provide both domestic and foreign threat actors with enhanced opportunities for interference by aggravating emergent events, disrupting election processes, or attacking election infrastructure," the analysis obtained by ABC News said.

Social media companies are protected from civil liability under a US law

Social media has largely gone unregulated since its birth nearly three decades ago. In the US, tech giants like Meta, X, and TikTok are protected from civil liability related to the content posted by their users and the companies' content moderation practices under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.

"It says they are not subject to legal liability, they are immune," McQuade explained. "And that probably made sense in 1996 when the goal was to foster innovation and investment, and here we are almost 30 years later, and we've seen some of the collateral consequences of this unregulated space."

So what's been the struggle for the government to address the issue of disinformation and misinformation on social media head-on? First Amendment concerns, pushback by Big Tech, and political will, have something to do with it, according to legal experts.

"It's hard to enact legislation, it's hard to define the terms" of misinformation and disinformation, it's hard to have agreement on what the proper intervention would be, and I think it's hard to craft something that's not going to have a First Amendment problem," said Gautaum Hans, a law professor, and associate director of the First Amendment Clinic at Cornell University.

"Any kind of regulation that targets speech has a very difficult barrier to constitutionality, so the issue there is you'd have to define disinformation or misinformation in a way that made it not covered by the First Amendment," said Hans.

Hans said he believes there's a "general skittishness about any legislator or any government official proposing something that could be deemed Orwellian in its attempt to try to create a regulation of protected speech."

"So most politicians, I think, are cognizant that it would be bad for their reputations to be seen as speech suppressive," he said.

Additionally, Hans noted, "there are benefits to certain political actors about the existence of misinformation."

Hans said he believes it is more likely that the remedies to misinformation and disinformation on social media will be found through the private practices of tech companies themselves instead of through the realm of law.

"I think that it is more likely to happen, and probably more effective in the long-term given the constitutional problems of legislative or regulatory intervention," he said.

Section 230 has been hotly debated for years

McQuade argued that social media companies would need to be incentivized to beef up their self-regulation on fighting misinformation and disinformation.

"I just think that you either need to put public pressure on them through consumers to make them change their behavior or through federal legislation," said McQuade.

McQuade proposed amending Section 230 in order to hold social media companies accountable under certain circumstances.

"The better course for regulating social media and online content might be to look at processes versus content because content is so tricky in terms of First Amendment protections," the former federal prosecutor said, adding, "regulating some of the processes could include things like the algorithms."

"I'm suggesting that perhaps Section 230 could be amended to provide for civil liability, you know, money damages if the social media companies didn't take certain precautions," she said.

Those precautions, McQuade said, could relate to the disclosure of algorithms and how private data is used, requiring users to label AI-generated material, and the removal of bots, which "are there to amplify false information."

"So I think that would be the way to sort of use a stick to get compliance by exposing" social media companies to legal liability for failure to comply with certain terms, said McQuade.

This would inevitably be challenged legally, and "they'd make it to the courts to see whether those laws would stick, but I think that's probably what it would require," McQuade said.

"Information is such an important resource, especially in a democracy," said McQuade. "And it seems that everyone should agree that when there is disinformation out there that is an obstacle to good government."

Section 230 has come under intense scrutiny over the years from both Republican and Democratic politicians alike.

Former President Donald Trump and other Republicans have argued the law gives Big Tech too much power to censor conservative voices, while Democrats like President Joe Biden have said it doesn't do enough to fight hate speech.

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed last year, Biden double-downed on calls to reform of Section 230.

"We need bipartisan action from Congress to hold Big Tech accountable," Biden wrote in the op-ed. "We've heard a lot of talk about creating committees. It's time to walk the walk and get something done."

Big Tech, however, scored a massive win last year when the US Supreme Court sided with Twitter and Google in lawsuits that alleged they "aided and abetted" terrorist attacks.

The decision, which was written by conservative justices, stayed out of the fight over Section 230.

Major social media companies have their own misinformation policies

Many major social media companies, including Meta, TikTok and X, have their own policies when it comes to tackling misinformation and disinformation.

For example, Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, says on its website that it removes misinformation "where it is likely to directly contribute to the risk of imminent physical harm."

"We also remove content that is likely to directly contribute to interference with the functioning of political processes and certain highly deceptive manipulated media," Meta says.

Meta says it focuses "on slowing the spread of hoaxes and viral misinformation" and requires users to disclose, using its "AI-disclosure tool," whenever they post content with "photorealistic video or realistic-sounding audio that was digitally created or altered, and we may apply penalties if they fail to do so."

"We may also add a label to certain digitally created or altered content that creates a particularly high risk of misleading people on a matter of public importance," says Meta.

In a May 2024 "adversarial threat report" by Meta, the company said, "So far, we have not seen novel GenAI-driven tactics that would impede our ability to disrupt the adversarial networks behind them."

TikTok says it does not allow "harmful misinformation" on its platform and says that it has "robust policies around specific types of misinformation like medical, climate change, and election misinformation, as well as misleading AI-generated content, conspiracy theories, and public safety issues like natural disasters."

X, the social media site formerly known as Twitter, says on its website that users "may not share synthetic, manipulated, or out-of-context media that may deceive or confuse people and lead to harm ('misleading media'). "

"In addition, we may label posts containing misleading media to help people understand their authenticity and to provide additional context," X says.

These policies, though, are not always enough.

Earlier this year, graphic AI-generated images of Taylor Swift went viral on X, with a post garnering 45 million views before it was finally taken down 17 hours later.

X, which is owned by Elon Musk, blocked searches for the popstar in the aftermath.

• Jasmine Ball didn't want to spend half her life sitting behind the wheel of her car in Los Angeles.
• Ball, 32, found a program that paid $10,000 to move to Tulsa, Oklahoma, so she packed her bags.
• Ball said she may never leave Oklahoma, which has a lower cost of living and better work-life balance.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Jasmine Ball, a 32-year-old financial planner who got paid to move from Los Angeles to Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 2020 with the Tulsa Remote program. The conversation was edited for length and clarity.

I had never heard of Tulsa in my life — of course, I'd heard of Oklahoma, but never Tulsa.

A YouTube video from a pastor out of Tulsa was how I heard about Tulsa itself. It piqued my interest.

I saw that it had a low cost of living, and then I found out about Tulsa Remote.

I was looking for places with a lower cost of living. I was comparing the cost of living in different states, and Tulsa popped up. I was researching a little bit more, and Tulsa Remote popped up.

I was like, "This looks good enough." And then decided to move.

I had already decided I was going to move there, and then I was looking at house prices and I told my dad I was going to buy a house. He's like, "You've not even been there."

I hadn't been there until I went there to look at houses. During that week-long stay in Tulsa, I found a house and put in an offer.

What really made Tulsa more interesting to me was the history of Black Wall Street.

I thought, "How cool would that be — to be a financial company going to Black Wall Street, too?"

Obviously, it was super cool to have that program and the incentive, but it was only part of the decision to move there.

I knew I couldn't stay in California forever

I'm from Orland, California — it's the middle of nowhere. I went to college in Minnesota, came back to Northern California briefly, and then moved to LA.

I don't know if I would've started my own business staying in California — definitely not as quickly.

I started my own company in December of 2021, so I had been in Tulsa for about a year. I stayed with my other company remotely for a year before that.

If I had stayed, I think I would have just kept working for someone else. But once I went to Tulsa and created that distance, I was like, "Well, I might as well just do this myself." So I did.

Finances were a big factor. But what really prompted my thinking that living in Los Angeles was not long-term was that I would get up and leave the house at 4:30 a.m., and I wouldn't get home until 10:30 p.m., and do that every single day.

Half that time I was in my car driving, stuck in traffic. I thought, "I can't live my life like this."

I literally did the calculation; I would spend years of my life in my car. I didn't want to live like that. I can't imagine being here 60 years old, having spent 20 years driving, when I could be living life instead.

That was what prompted it.

The finances were obviously a big part of it, too. In California, finances were so tight that you had to grind all the time.

I decided that I didn't want to compromise. I wanted to have the finances that I wanted to have, but I also didn't want to have to grind to that extent.

Finding a place that could create a balance was really life-changing.

I have a house for nearly what I was paying for a room in LA

In LA in 2020, I was living with three other roommates — one was my sister, and the other two were friends.

There were four of us in this five-bedroom townhome, and the rent was $3,800 a month — which was actually pretty good.

My portion of that rent was $1,100 because I had the master bedroom.

I bought the house in Tulsa in November 2020, and it just sat vacant until I moved there in December.

It's a three-bedroom, two-bath house with a two-car garage, and my mortgage is $1,185.

It was an opportune time to move because interest rates were about 2.25%, which is insane. So it was a no-brainer.

Utilities are significantly lower. I joke that I still have PTSD from the utility bills we used to get, especially growing up. I remember one summer we had a $600 electricity bill — that's ridiculous. In Tulsa, you can run your A/C all day and it's only $100 or $200.

Water, gas — everything is less expensive.

Gas in California is almost $5 a gallon, and in Tulsa, it's about $3. At the time I moved, it was, like, $1.70 and I was like, "What the hell?" I've never seen gas so cheap in my life.

It's not just the cost of gas, it's also time.

My time is able to be stretched much further in Tulsa than it was in LA. I can actually increase my income because I can increase my productivity because I'm not spending as much time doing unproductive things.

Tulsa has something as simple as parking. You can find free parking everywhere. It's always free after 5 p.m., and it's free on the weekends. Parking in LA is atrocious. You're lucky if you find a parking lot that's $10.

I don't think I'll ever leave Tulsa

There are free events all the time in Tulsa, like concerts in the park. If you want to do something, there's absolutely something to do — and it's likely free.

There are so many different suburbs of Tulsa that you can go to that have parades. I don't remember really ever coming across as much to do in LA.

I spend most of my free time in Tulsa doing one of two things: playing volleyball or volunteering.

California has the beach, but I never really played sand volleyball, mostly because it took too long to get to the beach. To get to Santa Monica on a bad day was an hour and a half. On a good day, maybe 45 minutes. And it just wasn't worth it after driving all week.

Tulsa has a couple of different volleyball leagues.

In Los Angeles, it was hard to find places to volunteer. Sometimes there was a full application — a 10-step process — and you're like, "I just wanted to do something this one time to check it out."

But in Tulsa, it's super accessible.

I volunteer a lot at the Tulsa Dream Center. They handed out free groceries every Saturday over the pandemic — rain, snow, shine. So I just showed up every Saturday, and you didn't have to do any training. At least in Tulsa, they make it so easy — instead of finding barriers and reasons you can't participate.

I didn't necessarily move there thinking that I was going to leave, but I always told myself, "You can always go back." If this doesn't work out, I don't like it, I can always go back to California.

But the surprising thing is that I really love it.

I don't see myself moving anywhere else ever.

I love to travel, and I might buy more properties in other places. I was initially thinking Tulsa was more of an experiment for a home base. And then it turned out to be something that I really enjoyed.

• Ford is trying to get its own employees to buy more EVs. 
• The automaker is changing its leasing scheme to encourage managers to go electric, per Reuters.
• It comes as Ford's electric vehicle business battles struggling sales and substantial losses.

Ford is urging its managers to lease its EVs and share their experiences with their friends and family as it looks to drum up interest in these vehicles.

According to an internal company email viewed by Reuters, the automaker has changed its leasing policy for some employees to encourage them to buy the company's EVs.

Ford runs a leasing program that allows eligible current and former managers to order a supplementary vehicle after leasing a set number of cars, usually one or two.

According to the internal email, that supplementary vehicle must now be either an electric Mustang Mach-E SUV or an F-150 Lightning pickup.

A Ford spokesperson told Reuters that the move would help employees see how easy it is to drive an electric vehicle and encourage them to "share their experiences with friends and family."

Vehicles leased to Ford employees count as sales for the company, per Reuters.

Ford's EV sales have struggled amid a slowdown in demand for battery-powered vehicles, and the company recently cut production of its flagship F-150 Lightning pickup truck.

Ford's EV business reported losses of $1.3 billion in the first quarter of 2024. To stem the bleeding, it has resorted to asking suppliers to come up with ways to cut manufacturing costs.

In an interview with CNBC's Julia Boorstin at the Aspen Ideas Festival in June, Ford CEO Jim Farley said it was critical that the Detroit automaker worked out how to make EVs profitable within the next five years.

He pointed out that Ford was in a race against Chinese manufacturers like BYD, who have been able to sell their electric cars at lower prices and are rapidly expanding across the globe.

"If we cannot make money on EVs, we have competitors who have the largest market in the world, who already dominate globally, already setting up their supply chain around the world," Farley said.

"And if we don't make profitable EVs in the next five years, what's the future? We will just shrink into North America," he added.

Ford did not immediately respond to a request for comment made outside normal working hours.

Do you work at Ford or have a tip? Get in touch with this reporter via email at tcarter@businessinsider.com.

• Tourism is booming again, resulting in crowds of travelers at Instagram-worthy vacation hotspots.
• But the uber-rich, willing to pay top dollar for the best service and amenities, prefer exclusivity.
• These are some places where millionaires and billionaires like to recharge.

During the summer months, if you're not on vacation yourself, it feels nearly impossible to avoid seeing pictures or videos of everyone else's trips to popular hotspots.

"ever since i turned 20, someone is always in japan or Italy," one envious-sounding X user posted. "is it like this forever."

The answer: maybe it is. Tourism is expected to reach pre-pandemic levels in 2024, the United Nations World Tourism Organization reported. As such, travelers of all tax brackets are looking for a getaway.

Searching Mykonos or Tulum on TikTok will yield thousands of travel videos that include 20-somethings on girls' or guys' trips and guides on how to avoid the large crowds. But while both destinations still attract several million tourists yearly, some ultra-rich vacationers seek more exclusive locations away from the hoi polloi.

Two big lures for the very wealthy are privacy and top-notch service, however "extra" the request. Travel writer Alexa West — who also spent time as a nanny for a rich family — said that "the ultimate indulgence is spending lavishly on vacations without a care for the cost."

"It's not just about luxury; it's about the experience of your every wish coming true," West said.

Here are four alternative vacation spots for the mega-wealthy.

Aman Resorts

Aman Resorts is a global hotel and resort chain focused on wellness and known for its steep prices. Its Utah-based site, Amangiri, has hosted A-list celebrities like Kylie Jenner and Justin Bieber who want a break from the public eye.

The desert oasis offers amenities such as hiking, an iconic pool, and wellness classes. For one night this summer, rates for its Amangiri Suite can reach more than $9,000. If Utah is too hot, however, Aman has sites worldwide.

Andermatt, Switzerland

Andermatt is home to the Chedi Hotel, considered one of the most luxurious hotels in the Alps. During the snowy months, it's a ski town for the uber-wealthy, but it also offers a championship golf course to visitors seeking some fresh Alpine air in the summer.

The Chedi has a sprawling spa, a two-Michelin-starred restaurant (as well as other restaurants, including one at 2,300 meters), and access to all the outdoor activities that the region is known for.

Monaco

Monaco hosts lavish events that attract billionaires from around the world. Its casinos, luxury shopping, and excess of yachts make it "a playground for the ultra-rich," according to West.

"It's where you can have a suite overlooking the Grand Prix circuit or dock your superyacht next to royalty," she told BI.

The Monaco Yacht Show, held in September, also attracts the wealthy who might want to buy a vessel.

Outside tourism, Monaco is reportedly the world's most expensive place to rent, a recent analysis by global real estate agency Knight Frank found. According to The Wall Street Journal, a 1,200-square-foot apartment would require a monthly budget of $30,000.

Yachts

Five-star hotels have attractive amenities, but luxury yachts unlock another level of privacy and mobility for those rich enough to own or charter one.

Instead of being bogged down by tourists in Mykonos, those aboard a yacht can simply dock at a Greek island of their choice and experience local culture. They can then sail to other Mediterranean summer hotspots like St. Tropez, Sardinia, and more.

"This level of autonomy was what drove a huge surge of in the superyacht market during and immediately following the pandemic," Heesen Yachts chief commercial officer Mark Cavendish said.

But such luxury comes at a very high price. Even chartering a superyacht requires a multimillion-dollar budget.

For example, the Carinthia VII, a 97-meter superyacht that sleeps 12 and is available for charter from Fraser Yachts, has a summer rate of over $1.5 million a week.

• Some Gen Zers are forgoing college and potential student debt to explore careers in trade jobs.
• A new report by Pro Tools Reviews identified the 10 highest-paying and most in-demand US trade jobs.
• The construction industry faced a labor shortage after COVID-19 and Gen Z is filling the gap.

Some Gen Zers are forgoing liberal arts degrees for jobs in construction.

According to the National Student Clearinghouse — a nonprofit that provides educational data and research — enrollments in vocational-focused community colleges were up 16% in 2023 compared to the year before, the highest level since its records began in 2018.

As the cost of college continues to rise and student debt lingers, Gen Zers are rethinking their career paths. College enrollments are declining nationwide, and some graduates find it tough to land a job. For many, trade jobs provide a financially secure alternative to a college degree.

For example, the construction industry faced a labor shortage following the COVID-19 pandemic, and some workers hope younger generations will fill the gap.

A new report by Pro Tools Reviews, an industry news and review site, highlights the highest-paying trade jobs in the US, giving insight into career opportunities that don't require a college degree.

Experts at Pro Tools analyzed May 2023 wage data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics — the latest available — to determine the most lucrative trade jobs.

Elevator and escalator installers can make up to $100,060 annually, according to the report, making them the highest-paid trade job in the country.

Meanwhile, aircraft mechanics technicians and boilermakers can make upwards of $70,000 annually, according to the report.

"For the past several decades, society has more or less dictated that college and a corporate job are the only paths to success," Clint DeBoer, editor in chief at Pro Tools Reviews, wrote in a statement. "In today's economy, trade jobs—often referred to as blue-collar jobs—frequently offer a direct route to six-figure incomes."

Pro Tool Reviews also examined the most in-demand trade jobs in the US. According to listed opportunities from job board sites like LinkedIn, Glassdoor, and Indeed, Pro Tools Reviews found that maintenance and repair workers have the highest number of vacancies at 55,579.

For those looking for a sought-after job that pays well, electricians and pipefitters, plumbers, and steamfitters are among the top 10 highest-paid and top 10 most in-demand trade jobs.

"This doesn't imply that younger generations should forego further education entirely," DeBoer wrote. "Those deciding on the best way to enter the job market should simply consider all of their options."

Have you recently switched to a trade job, or are you a recent graduate looking to land a trade role? This reporter wants to hear from you. Please reach out at jtowfighi@businessinisder.com.

• Israel is one of the world's few countries armed with nukes and multiple means to deliver them.
• An Israeli aerospace official recently broached these "doomsday weapons."
• "Israel's triad remains remarkably powerful for a country its size," an aviation expert said.

The prospect of a full-scale war between Israel and the powerful Hezbollah militia in Lebanon has sent tensions spiking and briefly highlighted the power of Israel's undeclared nuclear weapons.

Israel is one of the world's few countries armed with nukes and multiple means to deliver them, a capability recently referenced by an Israeli official with a leading government-run aerospace manufacturer.

"If we understand that there is an existential danger here, and that Iran, Yemen, Syria, Iraq and all the countries of the Middle East decide that it is time to settle against us, I understand that we have the capabilities to use doomsday weapons," Yair Katz, chairman of the Israel Aerospace Industries Workers' Council, reportedly said on Saturday.

He was speaking a day after Iran's United Nations mission warned that "an obliterating war will ensue" if Israel commits "full-scale military aggression" against the Iran-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon. It also declared that in this scenario, "all options" are on the table, including "the full involvement of all resistance fronts," a clear reference to Iran's militia proxies in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, the other countries Katz specifically mentioned.

By invoking doomsday weapons, it was clear Katz was alluding to Israel's nuclear weapons arsenal — an arsenal over which neither he nor IAI have any command-and-control. But his use of the word "capabilities" is a reminder that Israel has ground, air, and sea-based delivery systems for its nuclear weapons. In other words, a complete nuclear triad.

There are eight countries in the world with declared nuclear arsenals, four of which — the United States, China, India, and Russia — have a complete nuclear triad. Pakistan has a partial triad, making it a close fifth. Israel's triad has some notable distinctions and limitations compared to those of the other four.

"Israel's nuclear triad bears the hallmarks of a regional nuclear triad as seen in India and Pakistan, rather than seeking globe-spanning strike capability," Sebastien Roblin, a widely published military-aviation journalist, told Business Insider.

"Ballistic missile submarines with submarine-launched ballistic missiles and heavy bombers are unnecessary, even though Israel does face some range and geography complications vis-a-vis Iran in particular," Roblin said. "So, like Pakistan, Israel can rely on fighters, conventionally powered submarines, and submarine-launched cruise missiles for what it's trying to do."

"Israel's triad remains remarkably powerful for a country its size."

Experts believe Israel has three main delivery systems for its nuclear warheads. Israel has ground-based Jericho 3 intermediate-range ballistic missiles. Built by Israel Aerospace Industries, these IRBMs are capable of hitting targets at least 3,000 miles away. Israel also has German-built Dolphin 2 diesel-electric submarines widely believed to carry nuclear-armed Popeye Turbo cruise missiles, which can strike targets up to 930 miles away and purportedly have a 200-kiloton nuclear warhead. That modest submarine fleet gives Israel a second-strike capability in case its ground-based Jerichos are destroyed in an enemy first strike. And its fighter jets can drop nuclear bombs.

Ryan Bohl, a senior Middle East and North Africa analyst at the risk intelligence company RANE, noted that one primary way Israel's nuclear triad differs from its counterparts is its regional focus.

"Israel's nuclear deterrent is not designed to ward off great powers like Russia or China, but rather regional powers like Egypt and Iran," Bohl told BI. "Should it ever face a great power nuclear confrontation that would inevitably drag in the United States, which is certainly better equipped to handle such a thing."

"Israel does have purported capabilities for intercontinental ballistic missiles that would allow limited strikes extra-regionally, but again, none of these would have the impact of a great power," Bohl said.

"From what is known about the Jericho systems, they are both silo and land-based, but the reality is that all such land-based systems are vulnerable to first strikes, which is a key reason why the Israelis keep the triad," Bohl said.

The Israeli Air Force's fighter jets also play a role in the triad.

"Most believe specific IAF F-16 and F-15I Ra'am units have been assigned nuclear roles, with the latter fighters with their greater range and payload taking on added importance in the event of a long-distance war with Iran," Roblin said.

Israel also boasts a sizable fleet of fifth-generation F-35I stealth jets, which are more capable of penetrating enemy air defenses to destroy strategic targets. It's unclear if Israel's F-35s can currently carry nuclear payloads.

Roblin noted the US Air Force only recently certified the F-35A for nuclear missions.

"Whether and how Israel has integrated nuclear arms into its customized F-35Is is another mystery box," Roblin said. "Though I assume they will eventually assume a nuclear role if they haven't already —–they are just so much more survivable for delivery of gravity or glide bombs."

Israeli jets can also fire Popeye cruise missiles for standoff strikes. Israel has developed several air-launched ballistic missiles, some of which it used in a strike against central Iran in April. However, it's unclear if Israel has air-launched ballistic missiles fitted with nuclear warheads.

"The main challenge for making these nuclear-capable is Israel's capacity to miniaturize nuclear warheads vis-a-vis how heavy a warhead a given missile can carry," Roblin said. "So, weapons that support bigger warheads are easier to convert."

The IAF had nuclear gravity bombs as far back as 1973. Roblin pointed out that the US has "invested billions" in turning its B61 nuclear bombs into nuclear bunker busters. He suspects Israel could have undertaken a similar project.

"If Israel has more ambitious counterforce intentions for its air-based nukes, as in hoping they could be used to reliably destroy enemy nuclear missile silos and storage areas, then perhaps it has quietly developed its equivalent of the US's new B61s, say based around the SPICE glide bomb kit," Roblin said.

While extensive for a state Israel's size, RANE's Bohl highlighted some limitations of the Israeli triad, noting that Israel's true strength lies in having Washington's back.

"Israel's limitations are in part its relatively limited arsenal and more constrained systems for deployment beyond the region," Bohl said. "But within the region, Israel is certainly unsurpassed in its nuclear capabilities."

"Given that the United States would serve as a nuclear umbrella for Israel for extra-regional threats, these limitations are certainly nothing that constrains Israel's nuclear deterrent from its primary targets like Iran," Bohl added.

The RANE analyst also noted that the US's own forces represent a much more dangerous retaliation threat than Israel's submarines for any country that considers striking Israel with nukes.

"The true second strike threat for Israel is the United States itself, which in a theoretical nuclear war scenario would almost certainly retaliate on Israel's behalf should it ever suffer a first strike from a nuclear rival," Bohl said. "This makes it so that a second strike capability is important in terms of deterrence for full-scale escalation from a power like Iran."

"But from a strictly tactical perspective, it would be the United States that truly serves as Israel's most effective second strike system."

• Guaranteed basic income programs can help low-income participants afford necessities like rent.
• Over 100 US cities and counties have tried GBI, offering cash for housing and groceries. 
• Despite legislative opposition, basic income programs remain active across the country.

Ingrid Sullivan, 48, used her cash from the San Antonio guaranteed basic income program to rent a home where her grandchildren can play in the yard. And Atlanta resident Shamarra Woods, 31, used her basic income to pay bills and afford day care for her toddler.

For 46-year-old Jennette Fisher, $500 a month allowed her to sign an apartment lease in a quiet Chicago suburb with her daughter.

"It took such a weight off," Fisher previously told Business Insider. "If I wouldn't have had that money, I don't know what would have happened."

Guaranteed basic income has become an increasingly popular poverty-solution strategy in US cities. Over 100 municipalities have tried the GBI model since 2019, offering low-income participants between $100 and $2,000 a month, no strings attached, for a set time period.

What makes basic income different from traditional social services is the element of choice. Participants told BI they spent the money where they needed it most: on housing, groceries, transportation, and debt repayment.

Typically, participants fall below the federal poverty line. However, some programs have also focused on specific populations such as new and expecting mothers, households with children, or people experiencing homelessness.

Basic income pilots have been completed in cities and counties in Alabama, Virginia, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Mississippi, Louisiana, Indiana, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Washington, Oklahoma, and more.

GBI continues to face legislative opposition from Republican lawmakers who have called the programs "socialist" and say they discourage low-income people from entering the workforce.

For example, Iowa passed a ban on GBI in April, and the Arizona House of Representatives voted to ban basic income in February. On April 23, the Texas Supreme Court placed a temporary block on a Houston-area program that the attorney general called "unconstitutional."

Despite these political challenges, basic-income programs continue to be active across the country. Here's a breakdown of states, listed in alphabetical order, where cash payments are offered to low-income residents.

California

Location: Los Angeles
Program name: Breathe
Duration: June 2022 – August 2025
Income amount: $1,000 every month for three years
Number of participants: 1,000 low-income households

Location: Long Beach
Program name: Long Beach Pledge
Duration: spring 2024 – spring 2025
Income amount: $500 a month for 12 months
Number of participants: 200 low-income households with children

Location: Mountain View
Program name: Elevate MV
Duration: December 2022 – December 2024
Income amount: $500 a month for 24 months
Number of participants: 166 low-income parents

Location: Sonoma County
Program name: Pathway to Income Equity
Duration: January 2023 – January 2025
Income amount: $500 a month for 24 months
Number of participants: 305 low-income families

Location: Pomona
Program name: Pomona Household Universal Grants Pilot
Duration: Summer 2024 – Spring 2026
Income amount: $500 a month for 18 months
Number of participants: 250 low-income families with children under 4 years old

Location: Humboldt County
Program name: Humboldt Income Program
Duration: On a rolling basis, beginning December 2023
Income amount: $920 a month for 18 months
Number of participants: 150 low-income pregnant people

Previous basic income pilots have been run in Stockton, San Francisco, Marin County, Sacramento, Compton, Oakland, Santa Clara, San Diego, and more. In 2021, the state pledged $35 million for more GBI pilots over five years, and a bill being heard in the California Senate could provide GBI starting in August 2025 for students experiencing homelessness.

Colorado

Location: Denver
Program name: The Denver Basic Income Project
Duration: November 2022 – summer 2024
Income amount: Participants were divided into three groups: One receives $1,000 a month for a year; another receives $6,500 up front and then $500 a month from there; and another gets $50 a month.
Number of participants: 800 unhoused individuals

Location: Boulder
Program name: Elevate Boulder
Duration: January 2024 – January 2026
Income amount: $500 a month for two years
Number of participants: 200 low-income households

Georgia

Location: Atlanta, southwest Georgia, and the City of College Park
Program name: In Her Hands
Duration: First pilot was 2022 – 2024, second pilot began spring 2024
Income amount: Average payments of $850 a month over 24 months for the first round
Number of participants: 650 low-income Black women

Illinois

Location: Cook County
Program name: The Cook County Promise
Duration: December 2022 – December 2024
Income amount: $500 a month for 24 months
Number of participants: 3,250 low- to moderate-income families

Location: Evanston
Program name: Guaranteed Income Program
Duration: First round ran December 2022 – December 2023, second round begins summer 2024
Income amount: $500 a month for one year
Number of participants: 150 low-income families

Chicago previously ran the Chicago Resilient Communities Pilot, providing basic income for 5,000 residents, and has set aside $32 million to relaunch the program.

Iowa

Location: Polk, Dallas, and Warren counties
Program name: UpLift – The Central Iowa Basic Income Pilot
Duration: May 2023 – spring 2026
Income amount: $500 a month
Number of participants: 110 low-income households

Massachusetts

Location: Somerville
Program name: The Somerville Guaranteed Basic Income Program
Duration: July 2024 – July 2025
Income amount: $750 a month for 12 months
Number of participants: 200 low-income families

Basic income programs were previously run in Boston, Chelsea, and Cambridge.

Maryland

Location: Baltimore
Program name: The Baltimore Young Families Success Fund
Duration: August 2022 – July 2024
Income amount: $1,000 a month for 24 months
Number of participants: 200 young parents

Michigan

Location: Ann Arbor
Program name: Guaranteed Income to Grow Ann Arbor
Duration: January 2024 – December 2025
Income amount: $528 a month for 24 months
Number of participants: 100 low-income entrepreneurs

Location: Flint
Program name: Rx Kids
Duration: January 2024 – spring 2025
Income amount: $1,500 lump sum, then $500 monthly payments during the first year of a baby's life
Number of participants: 1,200 new and expectant mothers

Mississippi

Location: Jackson
Program name: Magnolia Mother's Trust
Duration: 12 months per pilot
Income amount: $1,000 a month
Number of participants: Over 400 low-income Black mothers since fall 2018

Minnesota

Location: Minneapolis
Program name: Minneapolis Guaranteed Basic Income Pilot
Duration: June 2022 – June 2024
Income amount: $500 a month for two years
Number of participants: 200 low-income households

A program in St. Paul began in 2020 and provided basic income to families for 18 months.

Missouri

Location: St. Louis
Program name: STL Guaranteed Basic Income Pilot
Duration: Fall 2023 – spring 2025
Income amount: $500 a month for 18 months
Number of participants: 540 low-income families with children

New Mexico

Location: Santa Fe
Program name: The City of Santa Fe Learn, Earn, Achieve Program
Duration: Initially ran October 2021 – September 2022, extended through the 2023-2024 academic year.
Income amount: $400 a month for 12 months
Number of participants: 98 young, low-income parents enrolled in a certificate or degree program at the Santa Fe Community College

New Mexico previously gave 330 mixed-status immigrant families across the state $500 a month. And, in February, a new state-funded pilot cash program for people enrolled in workforce training programs passed in the New Mexico House.

New York

Location: New York City, Rochester, and Buffalo
Program name: The Bridge Project
Duration: June 2021 – ongoing
Income amount: Up to $1,000 a month for three years
Number of participants: 1,200 low-income mothers

Location: Hudson
Program name: HudsonUP
Duration: Five years, with staggered cohorts launched in fall 2020, 2021, and 2023
Income amount: $500 a month for 5 years
Number of participants: 128 households

A 17-month program in Ulster County that provided basic income to 100 households ended in September 2022, and another program in Ithaca gave a full year of cash payments to unpaid caregivers through May 2023. The nonprofit Creative Rebuild New York also ran an 18-month GBI pilot for artists impacted by the pandemic, which ended in early 2024.

Oregon

Location: Portland
Program name: Black Resilience Fund
Duration: January 2023 – spring 2026
Income amount: Up to $2,000 a month for three years
Number of participants: 25 Black households in Multnomah county

This November, Oregonians will also vote on a universal basic income proposal to give all state residents $750 a year through taxing corporations.

Pennsylvania

Location: Philadelphia
Program name: PHILHousing+
Duration: Fall 2022 – spring 2025
Income amount: $89 to $2,079 a month for 30 months, depending on household income
Number of participants: 300 renter households from the Philadelphia Housing Authority's Housing Choice Voucher or public housing waitlist

Texas

Location: San Antonio
Program name: UpTogether San Antonio
Duration: Summer 2023 – December 2024
Income amount: $500 a month for 18 months
Number of participants: 25 low-income families

Location: Harris County
Program name: Uplift Harris
Duration: Initially scheduled to begin in April 2024, but delayed because of the Texas Supreme Court ruling
Income amount: $500 a month for 18 months
Number of participants: 1,928 low-income households

An earlier San Antonio program offered $5,108 to 1,000 families over a 25-month period that began in December 2020. The Austin Guaranteed Income Pilot also gave participants $1,000 a month ending in May 2023.

Virgina

Location: Richmond
Program name: Richmond Resilience Initiative
Duration: Several cohorts, beginning October 2020 – spring 2025
Income amount: $500 a month for 24 months
Number of participants: 94 low-income families with children

Location: Alexandria
Program name: Alexandria Recurring Income for Success and Equity
Duration: Spring 2023 – spring 2025
Income amount: $500 a month for 24 months
Number of participants: 170 low-income individuals

Washington DC

Location: Washington DC
Program name: CashRx
Duration: November 2023 – fall 2024
Income amount: Participant's choice, an average of $1,400 a month
Number of participants: 10 low-income individuals participating in the nonprofit Bread for the City's healthcare program.

A previous pilot in DC — THRIVE East of the River — provided basic income to 500 low-income households between 2020 and 2021.

Is there an active basic income program that isn't on this list? Have you benefited from a basic income program? Reach out to this reporter at allisonkelly@businessinsider.com.

Correction: April 29, 2024 — An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated the end date of the Guaranteed Income to Grow Ann Arbor program.

• I have a 4-year-old son and I missed registration for summer camp. 
• I wanted to give him the kinds of summers I had growing up in the 90s. 
• I'm giving him less screen time and way more time outside. 

I had a mom fail moment when I realized I had missed swimming lessons and summer camp registration for my 4-year-old son. My son's daycare closes for the summer and while I will have some part-time care, I panicked thinking of the slew of unstructured days that lay ahead of us. I felt plagued with guilt that my son would be missing opportunities to develop core memories and critical skills, not to mention I'd have less free time to write and read through the ever-expanding stack of books on my bedside table.

But, the other weekend I watched as my son played in a make-believe construction site in our backyard with the boys who live next door. Without plans or devices, they passed the afternoon with ease — and I even snuck in a few chapters of my book with an iced coffee in the sun. We had frozen pizza for dinner and he went to sleep without a fight, tired after a long day of playing outside.

It made me nostalgic for the magic of 90s summers and think that maybe millennials have it all wrong. Maybe it's not expensive vacations or a packed schedule of pricey day camps and montessori-inspired programs that make a memorable summer. Perhaps it's taking a page out of our parents' books and making space for more by doing less.

After that perfect afternoon, I was inspired to give my son a taste of the kind of summers I had as a kid growing up in the 90s. If I let my mind wander back to those long, lazy, pre-internet days, summers were a time for riding bikes, sidewalk chalk, making daisy chains and friendship bracelets, running through the sprinkler and existing on a diet of watermelon and popsicles.

The world looks a lot different now, but I'm planning on bringing this spirit to our summer by subscribing to these philosophies.

I'm letting him be bored

My TikTok algorithm serves me a daily stream of fun and educational activities to do at home with my son. Because I want the best for him (and because I really just want some silence), I have tried many of them.

I'm typically frustrated when the activity inevitably doesn't go as planned and takes up a meager five minutes before we're onto the next thing.

Instead of frantically trying to fill every minute, I am going to leave room for boredom. As a kid, it was during those long, boring summer afternoons that I formed my love of reading. I want my son to have the same opportunity to make fun out of nothing and let his imagination run wild.

Less screens, more time outside

While I'm not a screen time stickler, I plan to turn off the TV this summer in favor of playing in the yard, walking to get ice cream, going for dips at the public pool, and spending the day at the beach. I yell less when I'm parenting outside and the fresh air does wonders for my son's sleep and mood.

I will, however, not be denying evening screenings of 90s summer classics like "The Sandlot," "My Girl," and "Dazed and Confused" (when he's asleep, of course).

I'm bringing lazy mom dinner out

My parents didn't make me all organic meals in aesthetically-pleasing bento boxes and I turned out just fine. Summer feels like the right time to loosen up and approach feeding my kid with a little more ease. That doesn't have to mean filling him with junk food, but I'll prioritize playing over making fussy dinners he probably won't eat anyway. We might eat cereal, PB&Js or a bowl of cherries — it won't matter, he'll just remember the summer his mom let him drink from the hose, dig for worms, and play outside for what felt like forever.

Liz is a Canadian essayist who writes about motherhood and mental health. She lives in Vancouver with her husband and son. More on lizjhammond.com and @lizz__hammond.

• Baltimore gave low-income parents $1,000 a month for two years, no-strings-attached.
• Participants reported higher housing security and incomes after the first year.
• Over 100 basic income pilots have been tried in the US, but some lawmakers are fighting them.

For some Baltimore families, basic income helped pay the bills: rent, groceries, healthcare, childcare, and car payments. For others, it provided the support they needed to maintain stable jobs.

The Baltimore Young Families Success Fund, with research by research firm Abt Global, released its interim results in June for a guaranteed basic income pilot which began in August 2022 and is set to end this month. It gave 130 parents between the ages of 18 and 24 $1,000 cash each month to spend as they choose, with no strings attached.

After one year of receiving payments, participants were more likely to have housing, higher household income, and a degree than the pilot's control group. Still, some participants' overall financial well-being was not impacted in a statistically significant way.

Researchers primarily focused on participants' income, housing, employment, and education outcomes in the first year of the pilot. Through surveys and interviews, participants were compared to a randomly selected control group of 156 parents who met the criteria for the pilot but were not given basic income.

Like most other GBI pilot research, Baltimore's results are based on participants' self-reported experiences at the six-month and one-year points of the pilot. The pilot will continue to survey participants through February 2025.

Baltimore's basic income program joins over 100 similar pilots launched across the US — including some specifically focused on parents or families with young children. These pilots typically offer low-income Americans monthly payments for a set time period to spend on necessities. Economic security experts and local leaders continue to try the no-strings–attached cash model to combat poverty and income inequality despite continued conservative political opposition and legal challenges.

"We know that so many of Baltimore's young families simply need the opportunity to thrive, but often don't have the resources to help them make it happen," Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott, who was a key player in launching the GBI pilot, said in a press statement.

However, not all policymakers agree that GBI is a sustainable approach to poverty reduction, and it is not yet clear how basic income will impact participants' long-term financial security.

Baltimore focused on young parents experiencing financial insecurity

Baltimore leaders focused on young parents because early adulthood is a key window for building financial stability, which can be difficult for individuals with young children, per the report.

Parents eligible for the pilot had incomes at or below 300% of the federal poverty level, which is $74,580 for a family of three, but most participants' incomes were below that. They also had to be full or partial caretakers for at least one child.

The pilot is a collaboration between the city, local foundations, community leaders, and the nonprofit Mayors for a Guaranteed Income — with funding coming from philanthropic donations and $4.8 million via the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA).

The Baltimore Young Families Success Fund randomly assigned eligible applicants to the participant group or a control group.

Of the 153 selected pilot participants, 23 did not receive cash payments either because they declined them, could not be contacted, or did not fully meet the criteria. Additionally, most of the city's GBI participants were experiencing food or housing insecurity before receiving payments.

In fall 2023, BI talked to a Baltimore participant who said the pilot allowed her and her fiancé to move into a house. Tazhane Jordan had been living in her car with her toddler daughter and another baby on the way. She said the cash payments helped her family secure housing along with everyday expenses.

"People can always use resources for specific things, but sometimes, you know, you just need a little money for random things: gasoline, toilet paper, baby formula, things like that," Jordan said.

Baltimore participants reported higher housing security and household incomes

At the time of application, slightly more participants were in independent living situations than the control group — 52% compared to 45% — though this difference grew 13 percentage points after the first year. The "independent living situation" criteria mean participants weren't relying on friends or family for housing.

No participants were homeless after 12 months, compared to 5% of control group members. Researchers suggest basic income was likely responsible for the increased percentage of participants renting an apartment.

After a year of GBI, participants had a higher average household income of $23,608 a year, compared to $16,233 a year for the control group. Data shows participants either maintained their employment or saw a slight increase in labor force participation. More participants also reported applying to a trade school or college, and researchers noted that participants may have invested their cash payments in education instead of supplementing their income.

The researchers acknowledge participants remained "economically vulnerable" throughout the pilot, as their average household income remained below the federal poverty level and their unemployment rate was higher than similar Baltimore residents.

GBI pilots are facing political opposition, legal challenges

Basic income programs continue to face opposition in local and state legislatures. States like Iowa and Arizona have introduced GBI bans, as some Republican lawmakers call the programs "socialist," or worry cash payments could make low-income families too dependent on government assistance.

Several lawsuits have also been filed challenging the use of public money for basic income, alleging that it is "unconstitutional" in some states for cities to give residents direct cash. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton halted a Houston-area GBI pilot in April, and a public money-related lawsuit filed by two St. Louis residents in June could cut funding for the city's program.

But some, like Scott, see the initial results from his city's pilot as promising. He said Baltimore parents are using the money to stabilize their families and build their careers.

"This program invests in their potential and allows them to pursue the needs and goals that they determined for their own families," Scott said. "All the evidence points to that being a game changer for them."

Have you benefited from a guaranteed basic income program? Are you open to sharing how you spent the money? If so, reach out to these reporters at allisonkelly@businessinsider.com and nsheidlower@businessinsider.com.