• The US said China is giving Russia "every support behind the scenes" with its invasion of Ukraine.
• A US official hinted at further sanctions from the US and NATO.
• China's actions also help Russia threaten elsewhere in Europe, he warned. 

The US has accused China of covertly supporting Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and suggested that further US and NATO sanctions would be leveled against it.

US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell told reporters in Belgium on Wednesday that China was helping Russia rebuild parts of its military that had deteriorated since it launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022.

This includes Russia's long-range missile, artillery, and drone capabilities, as well as how it can track movements on the battlefield, he said.

"What we've seen from China to Russia is not a one-off or a couple of rogue firms involved in supporting Russia," Campbell said, according to Reuters. "This is a sustained, comprehensive effort that is backed up by the leadership in China that is designed to give Russia every support behind the scenes."

As such, Campbell said that European countries, as well as others in the NATO military alliance, need "to send a collective message of concern to China about its actions, which we view as destabilizing in the heart of Europe."

He warned that China's help had already allowed Russia to build up its abilities so it can "pose a strategic challenge" to European countries.

Many European nations have warned that Russia may attack elsewhere on the continent next.

Campbell also said that he'd briefed the North Atlantic Council, NATO's main political decision-making body, on Tuesday about the US' concerns.

He noted Europe and the US had imposed some sanctions on China for aiding Russia, and said he expected more from the US and NATO.

"I think the view is that we will need to send a clear, unambiguous signal to Beijing that such steps that China is undertaking are dangerous to the long-term stability in Europe," he said.

Campbell's warnings came after other US statements about China's assistance to Russia.

This includes US President Joe Biden raising the issue with Chinese President Xi Jinping in an April phone call.

China has not explicitly said that it supports Russia in its war with Ukraine, but it has still acted in ways that aid it.

While many Western countries have put sanctions on Russia, China has remained a close economic ally, which has helped Russia finance its war.

The leaders of both countries have also met and publicly complemented each other.

Some Chinese companies are buying Russian energy and paying for it with machinery and vehicles, Reuters reported.

The US also warned last month that China is giving Russia geospatial satellite imagery for military use.

In May, the US put new sanctions on banks and companies in China that it said were trading components with Russia that could be used to make weapons. China denies supplying Russia with weapons.

Since it launched its invasion, Russia has, at times, suffered from shortages of key weaponry, like missiles and artillery, showing that it is possible Ukraine could have made more progress if Russia had not received help.

Russia has also been assisted by Iran and North Korea.

While Ukraine has support from many allies, including the US, UK, and Germany, their support has come in waves that have been disrupted by politics. This includes Republicans in the US blocking new aid for six months.

And many pieces of weaponry are only given after months of debate.

Soldiers in Ukraine and experts say the supply of new weaponry is so unreliable that it doesn't let Ukraine plan for future operations or build up any long-term strategy.

• Israel's war in Gaza — and US support for it — has become a major issue in the 2024 election.
• Some voters are threatening to stay home or cast protest votes over Biden's handling of the issue.
• But Trump would likely be even more supportive of Israel if he gets a second term.

Israel's ongoing war in Gaza — and President Joe Biden's continued support for it — has become a major issue in the 2024 election.

After Hamas killed more than 1,200 people in its October 7 attack, Israel launched a counteroffensive aimed at eliminating the group.

That's led to the deaths of over 35,000 Palestinians, mass displacement and looming famine in the Gaza strip, and an international investigation into whether Israel is committing genocide.

Here's a guide to where President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump stand on Israel — and why some are threatening to stay home or cast protest votes in November.

Where Joe Biden stands on Israel

In general, Biden has remained staunchly supportive of Israel as it has waged its war in Gaza — but over time, he's gradually pushed the country to change its tack in the war.

His administration has pushed for a six-week cease-fire, conditioned upon Hamas agreeing to release the remaining Israeli hostages.

In February, he described Israel's conduct in the war as being "over the top," and one month later, he announced the establishment of a temporary port in Gaza while urging Israel to do more to allow the passage of humanitarian aid into the besieged territory.

In March, the US abstained from voting on a UN Security Council resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire and the release of hostages, allowing it to pass — though the administration quickly downplayed the significance of that vote.

In May, his administration halted the shipment of some weapons to Israel amid concerns about the impending invasion of Rafah, a city in southern Gaza where hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have sought refuge. He also threatened to halt further shipments of offensive weapons if a large-scale invasion proceeds, though he has insisted that he will continue to supply the country with defensive weapons.

Yet the Biden administration has also cut off US funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, the primary source of humanitarian aid in Gaza, over concerns that members of the organization may have been involved in the October 7 attacks.

Where Donald Trump stands on Israel

Trump, the all-but-certain GOP nominee for president in 2024, has been somewhat murky on the present conflict, criticizing Israel numerous times over the optics of the war.

"I think Israel made a very big mistake," he told Israel Hayom in March. "These photos and shots. I mean, moving shots of bombs being dropped into buildings in Gaza… it's a very bad picture for the world."

At the same time, Trump said in that same interview that Israel should "go and do what you have to do" and that "you have to finish up, you have to get the job done."

As president, Trump was even closer with Israel than Biden is, and he took several steps that benefited the Jewish state, including relocating the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. His administration also recognized the Golan Heights — a disputed territory claimed by Syria — as part of Israel.

Trump has also said numerous times that any Jewish person who votes for Biden or other Democrats should "have their head examined" — a missive that many have found offensive, but that signals he would be more staunchly supportive of the country than Biden.

The former president has also reportedly pledged to deport pro-Palestinian protestors on college campuses.

"If you get me reelected, we're going to set that movement back 25 or 30 years," Trump told a group of Jewish donors in May, according to the Washington Post.

Why some voters might cast protest voters — or stay at home

Given that Trump is broadly more supportive of Israel, one might expect voters who are concerned about Israel's war in Gaza to vote for Biden.

That's especially true given that many of the most vocal opponents of Biden's Israel stance are Arab and Muslim Americans, who have long been a scapegoat for Trump's brand of politics. Trump has also made vague pledges to expand upon the so-called "Muslim ban" that he enacted when he was president.

But many voters aren't doing that.

Hundreds of thousands of voters who might otherwise support Biden have cast "uncommitted" ballots in Democratic presidential primaries this year in protest of his handling of the conflict.

While a solid chunk of those voters are likely to vote for Biden in the general election anyway, many say they're still waiting to see Biden change course.

Some are even saying it's too late — that Biden has supported what they consider to be a genocide, and that there's no way they can vote for him again.

For these voters — some of whom may have even had family members killed in Gaza — they argue that the war outweighs all other considerations.

Abdullah Hammoud, the mayor of the predominantly-Arab city of Dearborn in Michigan, told Business Insider in March that even though he believes Biden has been a "transformative" president in terms of his domestic agenda, some of his constituents will never vote for Biden now.

"A genocide outweighs all of this," said Hammoud. "Aiding, abetting, defending, and supporting a genocide outweighs all that transformative legislation."

Rather than cast votes for Biden or Trump, these voters may simply stay home, or cast so-called "protest" votes for third-party candidates who have no chance of winning, such as Green Party candidate Jill Stein or independent candidate Cornel West.

• Shelley Paxton learned that success meant climbing the corporate ladder from a young age.
• She developed an unhealthy relationship with work during her career as a marketer. 
• Paxton became severely burned out as an executive and had to quit to overcome her health problems. 

The following as-told-to essay is based on a transcribed conversation with Shelley Paxton, an author, speaker, and coach, about her experience with professional burnout. It has been edited for length and clarity.

I grew up in a middle-class, straight-laced family but always felt restless. I was raised primarily in Minneapolis, which felt very homogenous. I always wondered what else was out there.

After I graduated from high school, I went to Boston College. I felt drawn to the East Coast because I wanted to be in a place with lots of diversity. Moving to Boston was one step toward broadening my worldview.

Success meant climbing the corporate ladder to the top

After college, I started working as an assistant account executive in 1992 in Chicago at a huge global advertising agency called DDB. I followed in my dad's footsteps as a marketer. He worked on many cool brands. I watched him work his way up in his career to become the CEO of Hagen Dazs eventually. He made the script of success clear: climb every rung of the corporate ladder, work for sexy brands, and get bigger and bigger titles.

I was rebellious growing up, but now I can see that his career path influenced me.

At 26, I was successful in my career and had an active social life. I'd even taken a four-month sabbatical, or "soulbbatical" as I call them now, to travel Europe. In my journals from 1996, I talked about following the winds of my soul and the tensions I felt in my career, but I didn't know who to talk to about my doubts.

My solution was to move to Istanbul for an international role at the agency I was working for.

Looking back, I took this role because I wanted to do something different, but I didn't know how to process that desire, so I stuffed it back down. I was trying to achieve a corporate career and travel — to reach success the Shelley Paxton way.

I returned to the United States in 2000 to take a senior role at AOL. I then continued to work in marketing roles with large clients like Visa.

I wanted to rebrand myself after a divorce

When Harley Davidson hired me as VP of Global Integrated Marketing and Planning in 2010, I was 40 and had just gone through a very traumatic divorce. I felt like my life was upside down.

Harley Davidson was my first opportunity to work on the client side of marketing, not the agency side. I saw myself as a biker babe marketer for one of the most iconic motorcycle brands on the planet. I thought, "Hell yes, I want to do that."

I thought the role would be my chance for reinvention, but ultimately, it was my final lesson and wake-up call.

If I wasn't working, who would want me?

I had struggled throughout my career with prioritizing work over my well-being.

This was an unfortunate pattern for me. Back in 2006, I agreed to go to Shanghai for a work assignment for Omnicom Media Group. At the time, my now ex-husband and I were trying to have children and wanted stability. Instead of honoring that, I said yes to the assignment because I feared the company would no longer see me as valuable if I said no.

I always believed that if I didn't put work first, Harley, or any company I worked for, wouldn't want me anymore. And who would I be, then?

I had allowed my entire sense of self and self-worth to be tied to my job, and it was a dangerous place to be. I always put work over my well-being and wasn't good with boundaries.

This pattern became more unhealthy at Harley Davidson. I was working late, canceling social plans to work more, and constantly checking my work emails or taking calls after hours.

I had the role of a lifetime, and I didn't feel happy

My dad had taught me to climb all the rungs. He was telling me, "You're going to be the president of Harley Davidson. You've got this. Keep going. Keep climbing." But I realized I didn't want that — even when I was promoted to CMO in 2014.

I was exhausted and burned out, and I felt guilty that I wasn't happy in my new role. It was a marketer's dream job, and I felt privileged even to ask, "Is this all there is?"

In September 2015, I started having vivid recurring nightmares about my dog, who had died. In my dream, I neglected my beloved companion, and my dog had become emaciated, and I'd been too busy to notice. Shortly after, I started drinking heavily to cope with the stress and help myself fall asleep.

I was able to function while drinking one or two bottles of wine before bed, but I started ignoring my own personal policies on drinking — like not drinking on planes and while traveling. Suddenly, I was drinking in airports, on planes, and at events.

I was trying to numb the painful truth of my own unhappiness while pretending to the outside world that I had it all together.

Seeking help made me confront my unhappiness

The decline in my physical well-being, which included weight gain, stomach issues, chronic coughing, and overall feelings of exhaustion, forced me to see a doctor in early 2016.

I wanted to see a doctor who specialized in Eastern and Western medicine so I could share that what I was experiencing was mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual. Sharing and accepting that I was unhappy was how I started on the path to leaving the corporate world.

I quit Harley Davidson in September 2016, and I stopped having nightmares. I worked with my financial advisor, and while I wasn't in a position to retire, I did have enough savings to give me some leeway while I decided on my next steps.

Initially, I didn't know what to do next, but I've since found my calling in helping others define their own version of success — one that doesn't burn them out or compromise their values.

When I first quit, I was inundated with messages from recruiters and tempting opportunities to rejoin the corporate world, but I didn't pursue them beyond a few meetings. I started traveling, enjoying time in France, and writing my book in New Zealand before going to Canada, Italy, and the United States.

Speaking about my journey has been my most important role

10 months into what I now call my "soulbbatical," my dad had a stroke. I made it my priority to support my family. Once he began to recover, I shared pieces of what evolved into my book at a writer's retreat.

I was encouraged to think bigger and share my message through speaking engagements and coaching programs for business leaders.

When I left Harley, I created the title Chief Soul Officer out of thin air because I was desperate to put something on my LinkedIn. I see it as the greatest title I've had because it reminds me of the importance of listening to my soul and letting it guide me.

• Passengers on a flight to Florida say they were told to prepare for an emergency water landing.
• The Spirit Airlines flight had to return to a Jamaica airport due to a suspected mechanical issue.
• Passengers say the flight descended into "total chaos" after they were told to put on life jackets.

A Spirit Airlines flight reportedly descended into chaos after passengers were told to wear life jackets and prepare for an emergency water landing.

Flight 270 from Montego Bay, Jamaica to Florida was forced to return to the airport shortly after takeoff due to a suspected mechanical issue on Sunday, according to the airline.

Passenger Bettina Rogers told CNN the pilot had initially told passengers there was nothing to worry about when a beeping sound went off in the aircraft, before informing them the plane was returning to the airport.

She said that as the plane turned back, passengers were told to "prepare for an emergency water landing," sparking pandemonium.

"It was scary, and people were freaking out and panicking," Rogers said.

Fellow traveler Andrene Gordon told Jamaican publication The Gleaner the aborted flight felt like a "near-death experience."

"We never knew we would actually make it to the ground because all we were seeing was literal water … it was total chaos," she said.

In a statement reported by CBS News, Spirit Airlines said the flight had returned to Sangster International Airport in Montego Bay "out of an abundance of caution following a suspected mechanical issue."

The airline said safety was its top priority and apologized to passengers for any inconvenience.

The airline did not immediately respond to Business Insider's request for comment made outside normal working hours.

Passengers on the flight were offered a new flight to Fort Lauderdale and reportedly given a $50 credit by the airline — which Gordon described as a "slap in the face" after the "traumatic" experience.

Passengers were told to put on life jackets before the plane landed safely at Jamaica's Sangster International Airport, and some recounted having difficulties accessing their buoyancy aids.

"I would say 15 min from the first announcement we were told that we had to prepare for a water landing. Everyone went frantic on the plane," Shancy Faison told CBS News.

"I tried to retrieve my life vest, and the case that the life vest was in it would not open. My husband then took his life vest off of him and placed it on me, and he still fought for it. Took about 4 of us to break open the box," she added.

It's the latest mishap to hit a major airline in recent months. Aviation giant Boeing is facing a federal investigation after an Alaska Airlines flight had to make an emergency landing when a door plug came lose and a window on one of its 737-9 Max planes blew off mid-flight.

Meanwhile, a passenger on a Singapore Airlines flight died, and several others were left in critical condition after the plane was hit by severe turbulence last week.

• Older Americans' student loan debt threatens their retirement plans, a new report shows.
• Millions of older Americans are struggling with student loans, impacting their retirement.
• Potential Social Security garnishments could worsen older borrowers' debt burdens.

Some older student-loan borrowers have been paying off their debt for decades — and it could eat into their retirement plans.

A new report from the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis looks at how student loan debt is weighing down workers gearing up for retirement, and how that debt has diminishing returns for any would-be-retirees.

Using data from the Fed's Survey of Consumer Finances, the analysis finds that over a million Americans ages 55 to 64 are holding student loans, or have spouses with loans. Gen Xers and boomers are also set to be saddled with that debt for years to come.

And the burden of that debt falls disproportionately on the lowest earners. Looking at debtors over the age of 55, just 3.7% are in the top 10% of earners — meaning that they make over $192,000. Conversely, 46% of those debtors are in the middle 40%, making $54,600 to $192,000. And 56% of those debtors are in the bottom half of earners, making below $54,600.

Gen Xers and younger boomers still expect their student debt to loom well into retirement age, according to the analysis; on average, workers ages 55 to 64 say it'll take 11 years to repay their loans, meaning many will be saddled with that debt well into retirement.

That comes as many older Americans already find themselves living off of less than $30,000 a year, with many reliant on Social Security to stay afloat — or some just unable to retire altogether.

There are a range of reasons why older borrowers might be struggling to pay off their student loans. A key reason is interest capitalization: if a borrower finds they cannot make their monthly payments at any point in their repayment period, they are forced to enter deferment or forbearance. During those times, the borrower is not required to make a monthly payment, but interest still accrues on their principal balance, meaning that oftentimes, the balance can surge beyond the original amount borrowed.

And should a borrower find they cannot pay their loans in retirement, the consequences could be severe. Retirees are at risk of having up to 15% of their Social Security benefits garnished to repay their loans — something that a group of Democratic lawmakers have called to put an end to.

Of course, younger borrowers are also facing challenges paying off their student debt. Millennials are most likely to hold student debt with an average balance of about $35,000, and while fewer Gen Xers have student debt, their average balance is higher at about $48,000, according to TransUnion.

Provisions are being rolled out by President Joe Biden's Education Department that could ease the burden of student debt on older borrowers. For example, the SAVE income-driven repayment plan shortens the timeline for debt relief — borrowers who originally took out $12,000 or less in student loans could receive debt cancellation after as few as 10 years of qualifying payments.

The department also extended the deadline for borrowers to benefit from one-time account adjustments, which allows borrowers on Public Service Loan Forgiveness and income-driven repayment plans an extra shot to get closer to relief.

On top of that, the Education Department is working to implement a broader student-loan forgiveness plan after the Supreme Court struck the first one down. It would cancel up to $20,000 in unpaid interest for borrowers, along with providing debt relief to those who have made at least 20 years of payments without any forgiveness.

Are you a Gen Xer with student debt who is worried about retirement? Share your story with these reporters at asheffey@businessinsider.com and jkaplan@businessinsider.com.

• Jennifer Rozelle has been working in estate law for over a decade. 
• She's witnessed some heartbreaking fights between families over inheritance. 
• One pair of siblings even argued until they lost their inheritance to legal fees. 

This as-told-to essay is based on a transcribed conversation with Jennifer Rozelle, 36, an attorney at the firm Indiana Estate & Elder Law, about seeing families receive inheritances in her line of work. The following has been edited for length and clarity.

I'm an attorney who practices exclusively in estate planning, elder law, and estate administration fields. I help people with planning for incapacity, death, and long-term care. I also work with family members of the deceased, helping them navigate the legal processes that occur after a person dies.

When a person dies, I represent the trustee or executor of their estate. My responsibility is to ensure that they follow the estate plan that the person who died created or, if the person didn't have an estate plan, that they follow intestacy laws, which will dictate who inherits what from the person who's passed.

I've been in this line of work since 2012 when I joined an Indiana-based law firm. Around five years ago, my husband, also an attorney, and I purchased the firm.

When I've dealt with inheritance at my job, I've noticed that putting money on the table changes people. I've seen it benefit a lot of people — they receive money or property they didn't have before — but I'd be remiss if I didn't recognize how many families end up fighting over it.

Families fight over property that is valuable — and not so valuable

My husband often says that dealing with estate planning documents is the easiest part of our jobs — It's the relationships and personalities involved that make it difficult.

In my experience, it's not even the amount of money that makes families fight. I've seen people bicker over personal property in mom or dad's house that isn't worth anything but has high sentimental value, like a family sword or jewelry. You can't always split this type of property between relatives.

I was once tasked with getting a valuation of a mother's wedding ring as two children were fighting over it. It turned out that the wedding ring was comprised of cubic zirconia, not real diamonds. Once that was discovered, neither wanted the ring.

Legal fees can end up consuming estates, so when estates have a significant amount of assets, there's a lot more time and room for families to argue.

Many years ago, I was involved in a case where two sisters were fighting, and their legal fees were consuming their estate balance. We were trying to get them to settle their dispute before they ran out of money, but one of the siblings looked us dead in the eye and said, "I would rather see you guys get that money than my sister." I will never forget the look on her face. In the end, the beneficiaries walked away with nothing. Litigation continued and consumed the entire estate balance.

Sometimes, you can tell from a mile away that a family doesn't get along and will argue, but some fights really do surprise you.

I once had a client who died with two properties, which went to his two children. Both children were in the room during previous meetings with the client and were very agreeable and amicable.

After their father died, the siblings began to argue over the properties; one wanted to sell both, and the other wanted to keep them. The one who wanted to sell was frustrated because their sibling, who wished to keep the properties, wasn't paying any of the bills.

I would never have thought in a million years that these two clients would have fought, but they both dug their heels in and went to court, where they were forced to sell the properties and split the money. They could have saved themselves a lot of time and money if they were more collaborative.

Grief impacts the way people handle inheritance issues

It breaks my heart to see families fighting over inheritance. We spend countless hours creating a plan so that nothing bad will happen, but when humans, relationships, and personalities enter into the equation, unpleasant surprises can occur.

I once had a client who was estranged from one of her children. She anticipated that her estranged child would kick up a fuss about inheritance down the line. She had written a letter before she died explaining why she disinherited the estranged child and gave it to me to keep until she died.

After she died, the estranged child was the first person to call my office. I gave the letter to her, and she caused an absolute scene in my office. There was a lot of screaming and expletives, but at the end of the day, I'm glad it happened in my office and not in front of her sibling.

Grief is very much at play in a lot of inheritance disputes. People can be in a very emotional and fragile state. Because I'm naturally a glass-half-full kind of person, speaking about death with people all day doesn't really impact me negatively. I'm used to the fact that people might react in a way that I don't agree with. I'd be doing them a disservice if I didn't extend them a little grace while they are navigating tough times, but it does become challenging when people are disrespectful.

I've also seen that inheritance has the power to do good

I think a lot of people assume that inheritances can impact families for the worse. People want to hear the juicy, dramatic stories, but I've mostly found that bickering families will calm down eventually and resolve things.

I've also had the pleasure of seeing how inheritance can have a positive impact. I've seen beneficiaries who didn't expect to inherit anything from someone receive a surprise check, or money being given to charitable organizations.

One client I had didn't have anyone close to her to leave money to, as her spouse and child had both died before her. She ended up leaving around $7 million to five charitable organizations. I got to be the person calling some of these organizations and telling them they'd be receiving money from this person's estate.

Seeing this kind of good come out of inheritances just fills my cup. I think it's important not to forget how inheritance can also change lives for the better.

• The AI frenzy is similar to the crypto craze a few years ago, top economist Paul Romer said.
• The Nobel Prize winner called it "typical bubble hype" and predicted AI progress would slow sharply.
• A narrowing, AI-obsessed stock market could signal an economic slump ahead, another expert said.

The breathless buzz around artificial intelligence is similar to the rabid excitement that surrounded digital assets such as dogecoin and NFTs in recent years, a top economist warned.

"There was this solid consensus only a couple years ago that cryptocurrencies were going to change everything, and then suddenly that consensus just goes away," Paul Romer told Bloomberg TV this week.

"Nobody even asks, 'Gee, why were we so confident and then it blew up?'" he added.

The Nobel Prize winner, former World Bank chief economist, and Boston College professor drew a parallel between the grand claims and rank speculation of that period and the ongoing AI craze.

"Right now there's way too much confidence about the future trajectory of AI," Romer said. "When people project this forward I think they're at risk of making a very serious mistake." 

He acknowledged that AI has advanced significantly in the past few years. However, the economist argued there was not enough data available for the tech to keep progressing at the same pace.

"Things are going to slow down a lot," Romer said. "It's just a lot of hype, the typical bubble hype where people are trying to cash in on the latest trend."

He predicted that in two years there would be broad agreement that AI was a bubble and people had overestimated its short-term potential.

Winners and losers

Romer is calling out the kind of AI hype that has boosted Nvidia stock more than sixfold since the start of last year, valuing the graphics chip maker as high as $2.8 trillion — just shy of Apple's market cap.

More staid companies like Nike and McDonald's, and even non-AI tech companies have performed far worse. They're "getting squashed," said Gary Kaltbaum, the president of Kaltbaum Capital Management, told Fox Business this week.

Transportation stocks are also in "bad shape," he said, cautioning that a narrowing market has often preceded past economic slumps.

"I think the economy's now in somewhat of a downtrend," Kaltbaum said. "Not a big recession or anything like that, but heading the wrong way."

Economically sensitive stocks have underperformed recession-resistant ones this year, signaling investors anticipate trouble, he continued.

"The market's speaking up here," Kaltbaum said. "I can promise you, if we head into recession, the market will be down 10% before you even know it."

Taken together, Romer and Kaltbaum see AI-linked stocks as hogging the market's gains — rightfully or not — and view the frenzy as a sign of problems ahead.

• Indeed's analysis of entry-level roles found inspector was the hottest job.
• The job-search site analyzed jobs using growth in the share of postings, pay, and experience.
• The top jobs weren't just ones that typically need a bachelor's or four-year degree.

If you're looking for your first job, you might want to consider joining the ranks of licensed practical nurses, inspectors, and business analysts.

Those three jobs were among the 15 hottest entry-level positions per a post from the job-search site Indeed.

"Graduation season is upon us and with it, the imminent influx of high school and college-level Gen Z graduates into the labor market," the Indeed post stated.

The US unemployment rate for 20- to 24-year-olds was 6.7% in April, above where it stood a year prior but not as high as in this past February and March, Bureau of Labor Statistics data suggests. A report from Handshake about the class of 2024 stated, "About 7 in 10 2024 graduates are confident they will find a job or other post-graduate opportunity that will allow them to apply the skills they learned in college and build toward the career they want."

Indeed's ranking of entry-level jobs included those that had an average salary of at least $45,000, noted zero to three years of experience in the job descriptions, and was also based on growth in the share of job postings.

"The jobs on this list were identified based on positive year-over-year growth in share of postings (September 2022- March 2023 compared to September 2023- March 2024) and ranked in order of highest paying," the report stated.

Inspector ranked No. 1 on the list, which Indeed told Business Insider largely includes property and construction inspectors. The Indeed post noted that an inspector job "does not require a four-year college degree, showing that skills-first experience may be just as valuable as education." Cable technician ranked No. 11, and installation technician ranked No. 10, which tend to require only a high school diploma based on the Indeed post. Some people don't see getting a four-year degree as worth it, as seen in recent results from a Pew Research Center survey of US adults.

Below are the top 15 hottest entry-level jobs from the Indeed list.

15. Licensed practical nurse

Percent change in job share: 17.24%

Average annual salary: $54,987

14. Entry-level field technician

Percent change in job share: 45.45%

Average annual salary: $55,000

13. Correctional officer

Percent change in job share: 21.43%

Average annual salary: $55,500

12. Sterile processing technician

Percent change in job share: 38.46%

Average annual salary: $57,031

11. Cable technician

Percent change in job share: 80.00%

Average annual salary: $58,912

10. Entry-level installation technician

Percent change in job share: 213.64%

Average annual salary: $60,000

9. Entry-level insurance agent

Percent change in job share: 41.03%

Average annual salary: $60,253

8. Entry-level sales representative

Percent change in job share: 27.17%

Average annual salary: $62,361

7. Entry-level civil engineer

Percent change in job share: 26.09%

Average annual salary: $65,352

6. Business analyst

Percent change in job share: 23.81%

Average annual salary: $66,394

5. Police officer

Percent change in job share: 15.38%

Average annual salary: $69,703

4. Mental health technician

Percent change in job share: 45.8%

Average annual salary: $75,322

3. Registered nurse — medical/surgical

Percent change in job share: 24.00%

Average annual salary: $77,281

2. Quality engineer

Percent change in job share: 84.62%

Average annual salary: $79,925

1. Entry-level inspector

Percent change in job share: 50.00%

Average annual salary: $80,253

America's young men aren't working. Well, a smaller share of them are working, anyway. As of April, about 86% of prime-age men — meaning those between 25 and 54 — were employed, a significant drop from the 1950s and 1960s, when that number was often closer to 95%. And 52% of men 16 to 24 were working, compared with well above 60% decades ago.

There are plenty of explanations for what might be going on — perhaps it has to do with recessions or disabilities or wages not being high enough to draw them in. There is an equally robust number of proposed solutions to this conundrum: upskilling and reskilling, convincing men to go into fields historically viewed as being for women, getting employers to be more realistic about requiring college degrees.

Let's toss another possible explanation into the mix: the unemployment-insurance system. The way firings are handled might actually affect whether guys get hired in the first place.

First, some basics. When a worker is laid off or fired, they're generally eligible for unemployment insurance, a program designed to help people stay afloat financially while they look for their next gig. After applying and being approved, which can be a pain, unemployed workers collect a check each week. The checks don't replace all their wages; the amount is generally less than half of what they were making before. It's something to tide them over so they can pay their bills, keep food on the table, etc., and that's good for the economy because it's a drag on everything when people suddenly can't do those things.

It's a straightforward enough idea, but the way we pay for UI is pretty wonky. Every business pays a tax into the pool of money that goes to paying unemployment insurance; the tax bill is footed by the employer, not the employee, unlike Social Security, which gets paid for by both. (Employers pay a certain percentage into UI on every paycheck, and those with more employees wind up kicking more in. It's sort of like the employer's part of Social Security.) But instead of it being a flat tax (the business kicks in X percentage each month) the rate can go up through a system called "experience rating." The experience in question is how much the employer has laid off workers in the past: More layoffs mean a higher tax rate. The thinking is that the more workers the company has let go, the more it's pushed people to draw on the UI system, so therefore it should pay more in unemployment taxes.

If you are going to get taxed for any employees that get laid off, you're going to be a lot more hesitant about hiring.

The idea behind this is understandable (though most countries don't do UI this way). If you want to discourage businesses from firing people willy-nilly, you penalize those that do. But in practice it's had some unintended consequences. A new paper from Matt Darling, a senior employment-policy analyst at the Niskanen Center, a center-right think tank, argues that the experience-rating system has made some employers reluctant to hire workers they're worried won't work out — and that young men, in particular, are the ones being harmed.

"If you are going to get taxed for any employees that get laid off, you're going to be a lot more hesitant about hiring," Darling told me. "It isn't the sole driver, but I think it's an important one."

The experience-rating system wasn't nationwide until the federal government in the mid-1980s mandated that states adopt the program. Darling looked at what happened when it was forced on the state of Washington, which held out on implementing the program until 1985. He compared it with Oregon, which already had an experience rating in place. The states' unemployment rates for young, entry-level workers moved in sync before Washington's experience rating was in place. When it was implemented, workers in Washington started to see higher unemployment. Darling found that after the experience rating was introduced in Washington, the unemployment rate for workers 15 to 25 — basically entry-level workers — increased by 2.5 percentage points. The effect was driven almost entirely by young men: Unemployment went up by 2.7 percentage points for young men but by only 0.1 percentage points for young women.

"It does sort of tie into a lot of things that people have been thinking about," Darling said. "Why is the male employment rate declining in general?"

The prospect of higher unemployment taxes can prompt employers to steer clear of people they perceive as riskier workers or opt to hire contractors. In more-nefarious situations, they might try to discourage workers from applying for unemployment or make their employees so miserable that they quit and therefore aren't eligible for UI benefits. So why would young men bear the brunt of this?

Men tend to outnumber women in economically vulnerable industries, such as manufacturing and construction. In recessions, those sectors are often hardest hit, meaning their jobs are among the first to go. (The pandemic recession was the exception.) Businesses in those sectors may also be extra sensitive to their experience ratings; they don't want to add even more to their taxes.

Employers might also see young men as riskier to bring on board. Fairly or unfairly, there's a stereotype that young men are more volatile, more immature, and less responsible than their female counterparts. Darling notes that men drop out of college at higher rates than women and argues that the same behavioral differences that drive that trend could also mean businesses see them as a higher layoff risk.

There are some ideas out there about policy solutions to fix the experience rating and UI. Darling's preference is to ax the experience rating and just pick a simple tax rate.

Implementing any of these solutions would be complicated, as there's rarely much political will to act on unemployment insurance. People realize how screwed up the system is when times are bad (see: the Great Recession, the pandemic), but once things get back to normal, everyone sort of forgets. Whatever appetite for action there might have been in Congress dies out — there's no real constituency of people who consider themselves the "unemployed worker." Lawmakers on Capitol Hill and in state legislatures do not love talking about taxes unless they're cutting them.

As for why so many young men aren't working, it's a doozy. There's no quick fix for recessions or incarceration rates or pay or any of the many other factors driving the shift. But maybe a step in the right direction here is to at least talk about it. And, hey, if you're a business owner, maybe take a risk on that young guy who walks through your door instead of worrying about what it might cost you if you decide to fire him.

Emily Stewart is a senior correspondent at Business Insider, writing about business and the economy.

Sleep is the great unifier. Everyone needs it to repair cells, store memories, and balance emotions. It also helps us solve complex problems — ever need to just "sleep on it"?

Hustle culture tells us sleep is for the lazy. CEOs such as Apple's Tim Cook and Robinhood's Vlad Tenev tout their limited sleep schedules. Gordon Ramsay attributes his success to long workdays and little sleep. One woman told Business Insider she had saved tens of thousands of dollars by juggling two full-time jobs and sleeping for just three hours each night.

But while different people tend to feel more alert at different times of day, the science is clear: Everyone needs at least seven to nine hours of sleep each night in order to function properly. Teenagers need a full eight to 10 hours. And there is emerging evidence that women, who historically have been largely excluded from sleep studies, need more rest than men. When we don't get enough sleep, it can influence everything from how much money we make to our likelihood of developing dementia, heart disease, and diabetes.

Yet more than 85 million Americans are running on fumes. They don't get enough sleep, and the problem has grown worse over time.

The internet is littered with advice on how to get enough sleep: Keep your phone in a different room. Don't drink alcohol before bed. Turn the thermostat down. There's even specialized advice for couples: Maybe separate bedrooms will help. Those with extra cash can take things a step further. Drake bought a $395,000 horsehair mattress that supposedly improves circulation. Michael Phelps slept in a hyperbaric chamber that simulated being at 8,000 feet. And expensive products such as Oura's smart ring and Whoop's smart band promise to use data to improve your sleep.

These tactics imply that proper "sleep hygiene" (and expensive products) can fix chronic sleep deprivation. In fact, researchers used to believe that people in cities — where sleep impediments like noise pollution, bright lights, cramped conditions, and poor airflow are common — got the worst sleep. But an analysis of 2020 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by my team at American Inequality, a data-driven newsletter, has found that the most underslept people live in low-income, rural areas, primarily in the South. Residents of West Virginia, Kentucky, and Alabama regularly get the least amount of sleep — and it's not because they don't have horsehair mattresses.

Researchers have found that stress is one of the strongest indicators of poor sleep. Economic stress, in particular: Americans in poverty report getting the least amount of sleep. In a 2022 survey, 87% of Americans polled said they lost sleep worrying about their finances. And in a 2020 study, 13% of newly unemployed people said they got four hours of sleep or less a night, half of what the average employed person gets. In counties where about half the population doesn't get enough sleep, many of which are in Alabama, unemployment rates are twice as high as the US average, and median household incomes hover around $35,000.

Mingo County, tucked in the southwestern corner of West Virginia, is the most sleep-deprived county in the most sleep-deprived state. One-quarter of Mingo residents live in poverty — double the national average. On top of that, the county struggles with poor health, another major contributor to poor sleep. Nearly half of Mingo residents are obese (10 percentage points higher than the national average) and one in three smoke cigarettes (triple the national average). Mingo is also home to the highest rates of hypertension and heart disease in the state.

On the other end of the spectrum is Boulder County, Colorado, which you might call the sleep capital of America; 80% of residents reported being well rested. Here, the unemployment rate is one of the lowest in the state, and the median household income falls at $92,000. It's also one of the healthiest counties in country.

In major cities such as Manhattan and San Francisco, where the median incomes are $90,000 and $126,000 respectively, seven in 10 people reported getting sufficient sleep. Money may not buy happiness, but it does seem to buy better sleep.

Mental and physical health, which tend to be worse in lower-income areas, also contribute to sleep inequality. In our analysis, we overlaid the CDC's sleep data with a CDC survey on mental health and found a 79% correlation between mental-health problems and poor sleep. A 2022 study by Columbia researchers found a similar relationship. According to Johns Hopkins, three-quarters of people with depression say they struggle to fall asleep or stay asleep. Other research has found that half of people with chronic pain and as many as half of people with cancer don't get enough sleep.

These factors build on each other. Economic stress, depression, and physical pain make it harder to sleep, and the lack of sleep makes all these situations more difficult to manage. Americans with sleep disorders earn an average of $2,500 less each year than their well-rested peers and are more likely to have to leave their jobs. Researchers at Johns Hopkins University found that poor sleep increased the likelihood of developing the very diseases that keep people awake at night in the first place: cancer, dementia, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and obesity. It also accelerates the spread of certain cancers. Once these negative feedback loops begin, it can make it harder for people to dig out of cycles of inequality.

To fix their sleep problems, people often resort to outlandish sleep hacks like using a red light bulb in their bedroom or taking a cold shower before bed. One of the more common approaches, the "military sleep method," which relies on breathwork and relaxation techniques, isn't backed up by much research.

Some advice, including building a regular sleep schedule, breathing filtered air, and getting daily exercise, will probably help you sleep better. But these individual hacks tend to distract from what's actually plaguing the most sleep-deprived Americans. If you lose your job or suffer from chronic pain, trying not to think for 10 seconds isn't going to do much.

Big, structural changes such as better access to affordable healthcare, expanding income-support programs like the child tax credit, and implementing mental-health programs in schools would go a long way to ending the sleep-deprivation doom loop. But in the meantime, there are a few smaller fixes, such as moving school start times to 8:30 a.m. In the most sleep-deprived states, schools tend to start earlier, beginning at 7:40 a.m. on average in Mississippi and 7:49 a.m. in Alabama. Students slog through school in a fog of sleep deprivation, which affects their ability to learn. Pushing back start times can improve grades by 4.5%, or the equivalent of three months of student learning.

According to the CDC, 70% of high schoolers are not getting enough sleep. One study found that delaying school start times to 8:30 a.m. or later for high schools and elementary schools would add $83 billion to the US economy within a decade because of students' improved performance in school. California and Florida are already on board, recently passing bills mandating that all public high schools start no earlier than 8:30 a.m.

Another way forward is through labor regulations. In 2003, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education implemented rules limiting work hours for all medical residents to ensure they got enough sleep. Since then, care for patients and doctors' well-being have improved. But more rules are needed — 40% of healthcare workers still weren't getting enough sleep when the CDC last looked at the issue, in 2017. Industries such as transportation also have rules to protect sleep, limiting truck drivers to 11 hours on the road at a time. But there are many professions where people are left to their own devices. In the food-services industry, people juggle inconsistent shifts and low pay that often requires taking on multiple jobs, and 40% of workers don't get enough sleep. Among gig workers, who lack traditional employment protections, inconsistent pay has been found to contribute to worse sleep.

When people start to fall behind on sleep, their social, economic, and physical lives soon begin to suffer. The cycles of inequality deepen, and no amount of red-light therapy can reverse the trend.

Jeremy Ney is the author of American Inequality, a data publication project that spotlights US inequality topics. He was previously a macro policy strategist at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.