• Ride-hailing drivers are reporting sub-$3 fares, often earning less than a cup of coffee per trip.
• It's part of a broader trend of gig drivers saying they're seeing lower pay.
• Uber and Lyft told BI that drivers earn more than $30 an hour while engaged on the apps.

The Uber or Lyft driver who took you from the office to a nearby restaurant downtown might not be able to even buy a cup of coffee with the money made from your trip.

Eight ride-hailing and delivery drivers shared screenshots this month with Business Insider showing nearly two dozen recent trips, ranging from five minutes to 15 minutes, that paid at or below $3, excluding tips.

One screenshot from a Lyft driver based in Arizona showed a $2.62 ride that took 15 minutes and traveled 4.32 miles, not counting the few minutes it took to drive to the passenger. This was the amount offered to the driver on the platform before it was accepted and before tips. Similar screenshots came from drivers in Cleveland, Houston, Fort Lauderdale, and Orange County.

Sergio Avedian, a gig driver and senior contributor at the gig-driver-advocacy blog and YouTube channel The Rideshare Guy, has started encountering sub-$3 rides over the last several weeks in Los Angeles. He said many drivers across the country have written to him recently complaining about these rides, which can be unprofitable after accounting for driving expenses.

"These short trips actually put more wear and tear on your car than these long trips because you're braking and accelerating constantly," Avedian said, noting it's becoming increasingly rare he gets well-paying rides.

For some drivers, these sub-$3 trips are a symbol of their broader frustrations with their pay. In recent months, several gig drivers have told Business Insider that driving is less profitable than it used to be and that ride-hailing giants are taking a larger cut of rider fares. Research shows that drivers across six ride-hailing and delivery platforms earned well below the local minimum wage after accounting for expenses, even with tips included. Drivers' frustrations have led to protests and calls for higher guaranteed pay nationwide.

To be sure, gig drivers who come across a sub-$3 trip can always reject it — but many say profitable trips have become harder to come by.

$3 trips aren't worth it for many drivers

The screenshots showed that the sub-$3 trips generally required drivers to drive no more than 10 minutes, including the time spent driving to the pickup location and then to the customer's destination.

According to some drivers, shorter rides can be preferable if they pay more per mile. But for many, the math on these rides doesn't add up.

For example, a Florida-based driver sent a screenshot of a ride that paid $2.36 after deductions and required an estimated four-minute drive to the pickup location — and then an additional six-minute drive to the destination. Less than $3 in earnings for 10 minutes of work translates to almost $15 an hour, slightly above the state's $12 minimum wage.

But this doesn't account for the time drivers wait for customers to find them at a pickup location. Nor does it account for driving expenses like gas, maintenance, and depreciation that can eat into a driver's profits. In February, Lyft estimated the typical driver had about $7 each hour in vehicle expenses.

A customer tip can tilt the math back in the driver's favor, but they're not guaranteed. A study of over 500,000 US gig drivers by Gridwise, a data analytics company that helps drivers track their earnings, found that 28% of Uber and Lyft ride-hailing trips received tips.

Business Insider reached out to Uber and Lyft for comment. An Uber spokesperson said that across the US, drivers are "earning more than $30 an hour while engaged on the app." They added that in states like California, where a minimum pay standard is in effect, drivers can count on a certain level of pay.

A Lyft spokesperson wrote in an email: "In Q1 of this year, the median US Lyft driver earned $31.10, including tips and bonuses per hour of engaged time. After considering estimated expenses such as gas and maintenance, that's around $24.25 per engaged hour."

Earlier this year, Lyft announced it would start guaranteeing drivers earn 70% of their riders' payments each week after external fees. In December, Uber said that its "take rate" — the share of ride-hailing revenue as a percentage of gross fares — is well below 20% when one excludes the commercial insurance costs the company provides to drivers.

To be sure, rides with bottom-of-the-barrel fares appear to be rare. Data provided to Business Insider by Gridwise showed that so far in 2024, fewer than 1% of completed US Uber and Lyft trips paid drivers below $3, excluding tips. In comparison, over 36% of Uber Eats, DoorDash, and Grubhub completed deliveries paid less than $3 before tips. However, after tips, the share of sub-$3 deliveries fell to below 2% on all three platforms.

Compared to January 2023, sub-$3 trips — excluding tips — have become more common for DoorDash, Grubhub, and Uber Eats drivers and less common for Uber and Lyft drivers, per Gridwise.

Gridwise noted that its earning data does not include earnings tied to promotions or minimum pay standards. Given it only included completed trips, it doesn't account for the sub-$3 trips, for example, that a driver sees and declines.

The $3 ride could have a future if drivers stay desperate

Avedian explained that because of the oversaturation of ride-hailing drivers, desperate drivers are bound to accept these trips. He said even if he rejects a low-paying ride, it "gets snapped up immediately." Otherwise, the pay would likely increase if drivers rejected these rides since drivers would be more likely to accept a higher-paying ride.

"In 2024, putting a human in my car for $3 or less is asinine to me," Avedian told BI. "Gas prices in California are hitting $5.50, and to me, this goes to show how out of touch these companies are that our expenses have gone up 40%, 50%, even 80% in a lot of cases, and the fares have gone down."

He said the risk-reward is "completely upside down," arguing these companies should set minimum fares of at least $5.

"I will reject a million of those and then turn my app off and go home," Avedian said. "I cannot run a profitable business by doing $3 trips."

Drivers say they're seeing more sub-$3 trips

Randy Scott, 46, has driven for almost six years and has over 25,000 rides on Uber and Lyft. He drives in between managing local and state political campaigns. The South Florida resident said he's recently seen more rides under $5 coming in, which he suspects is because more immigrant drivers in his area regularly accept these rides.

A screenshot he shared with BI shows a ride for $2.30. From a business perspective, he said he understands why these companies would continue offering low rates if they'll always be accepted eventually.

"At the end of the day, people are out driving in good faith, trying to make money and work, but they don't necessarily have the knowledge to say, 'wait a minute here, they're offering me $2,'" Scott said. "There's got to be a line drawn somewhere."

He said the positives of driving still outweigh the negatives, as he's developed strategies for earning about $900 gross revenue driving 50 hours a week. Every week, his strategy is different, as his area is seasonal with tourists.

Still, he said even on slow days, he'll take the $4 ride as it's at least a couple of dollars, plus a tip.

He said gig driving feels like the "Wild West" right now, noting that state governments should work to regulate the driver market to help drivers earn a living wage."I don't think drivers are asking for the moon," Scott said.

Moises Diaz, a 41-year-old Uber and Lyft driver in California, started driving part-time in December. But May was the first month that he started seeing rides that paid roughly $3 or less, and now they're "coming in very often," he told Business Insider via email.

Even for longtime drivers, the appeals of driving may not be enough to overpower the declining pay.

Joe, a 53-year-old in Florida, has been driving for Uber since 2014. He asked to use a pseudonym for fear of retribution and told BI he's "never seen pay this low."

"I see these sub-$3 fares at least between five to 10 times during a six-hour shift," he said.

Are you a gig driver who is struggling to make ends meet? Reach out to these reporters at nsheidlower@businessinsider.com or jzinkula@businessinsider.com.

• I tried the biggest burgers at McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King, In-N-Out, and Shake Shack.
• Shake Shack's burger was a little overwhelming, in my opinion.
• Burger King's Triple Whopper impressed me with its flame-grilled patties and fresh toppings.

The biggest burgers at fast-food chains are usually more expensive, but how do they rank in terms of taste and value?

Price is a hot topic when it comes to fast food. Business Insider previously reported on how hikes in fast-food prices and the rumored practice of "shrinkflation" — a phenomenon in which customers claim menu items are getting smaller while either remaining the same price or costing more — are upsetting customers.

I recently compared six of the biggest burgers sold at fast-food chains, testing burgers from McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King, In-N-Out, and Shake Shack to see how they stacked up in terms of taste, price, and overall value.

Shake Shack's double cheeseburger was a little too heavy for my liking, while Wendy's and Burger King both impressed me with their triple-stacked burgers. 

Here's how the biggest burgers at five fast-food chains ranked, from worst to best.

Shake Shack's double cheeseburger, my personal least favorite, was particularly large.

It cost me $12.49, not including tax, making it the most expensive burger I tried. I chose pickles, onions, and Shack sauce as my toppings.

The burger patties were perfectly crispy on the outside and covered in gooey melted cheese.

The pickles were large and crunchy, and the amount of other toppings was generous. The chain's signature Shack sauce also added a ton of flavor, and the cheese was perfectly melted.

However, the burger was almost too heavy to pick up.

Biting into the Shake Shack burger was a little overwhelming, in my opinion.

I know I purposefully ordered the largest burger on the menu, but this burger was massive. I saw it as a hindrance rather than an asset, and I struggled to get through more than a few bites.

Despite being the most expensive burger, I'm not sure it was worth it. The burger patties were much thicker than quite a few of the other burgers I tried, and the toppings definitely enhanced the flavor. However, it was simply too big, to the point where it tasted like a giant meat-and-cheese grease-bomb. 

My second-to-least favorite burger was a classic: a McDonald's Big Mac.

I was conflicted over whether the biggest burger at McDonald's was the Big Mac — which is physically the largest thanks to the extra bun — or the Double Quarter-Pounder, which is the burger with the most meat. I decided to try both to appease both sets of McDonald's fans who argue for one over the other.

A Big Mac cost me $7.29 at my local McDonald's, excluding tax.

There was a generous layer of pickles, lettuce, and sauce on the sandwich.

The burger patties weren't overwhelming, nor was the sandwich as a whole. I also liked the tangy, creamy Big Mac sauce. However, I thought the added bun made the sandwich taste too much like bread and the other flavors were slightly lost, in my opinion.

The sandwich was a good size and very filling, but I wasn't crazy about the flavor profile.

I simply wanted more flavor happening. Between the extra bun and the generous serving of Big Mac sauce, that was all I could taste. Tomato, cheese, or simply other condiments might have taken the sandwich to the next level.

The 4×4 is the largest burger available at In-N-Out.

The burger, which is on In-N-Out's "not-so-secret" menu, is also referred to as the "Quad Quad," and comes with four beef patties, four cheese slices, lettuce, tomato, spread, and the option to add onions. It cost $9.49, excluding tax and fees.

The giant burger was difficult to hold in one hand, let alone bite into.

The burger was far too large for me to eat in one sitting, though the flavor made me want to. 

All of the elements of the burger were delicious, from the juicy beef patties to the layers of cheese and fresh lettuce and tomato.

However, the additional burger patties ended up detracting from the burger's overall ranking instead of enhancing it. The burger was overwhelmingly heavy, with the tomato and lettuce failing to offset the excessive amount of meat and cheese.

The buns couldn't contain the juicy beef patties, and they started disintegrating as I ate the burger. Truthfully, I wouldn't order this again. Although it was tasty, the amount of meat was just too much for me.

I also tried McDonald's Double Quarter-Pounder with cheese. I preferred it over the Big Mac.

Looking at the burger in the box, I immediately noticed that it had more meat than the Big Mac. The meat was clearly the star of the show, with the other toppings barely visible beneath the patties and bun.

The burger cost me $9.79, excluding tax. I thought this was a fair price for the meat-heavy burger.

The Double Quarter-Pounder with cheese comes with a whopping half-pound of meat, pickles, onions, ketchup, and mustard.

I found this burger to be pretty flavorful, especially thanks to the condiments and large slices of crunchy pickles. However, I wasn't crazy about the bun — while I normally love a sesame-seed bun, I found this one to be pretty bland, airy, and artificial-tasting.

I would order this burger again.

Despite having a ton of meat, the burger didn't feel too overwhelming to eat. I thought it was a realistic sandwich, especially compared to the gigantic burgers from Shake Shack and In-N-Out.

The second-best burger I tried was Wendy's Dave's Triple.

When I arrived at my local Wendy's drive-thru, this extra-large burger wasn't even on the menu. However, thanks to my online research, I knew it could be made and decided to order it anyway. I did wonder how popular this sandwich was, and if many people opt for the triple-patty burger.

The Dave's Triple burger cost $11.24, excluding tax.

Wendy's Dave's Triple burger comes with nearly a pound of beef, American cheese, crisp lettuce, tomato, pickle, ketchup, mayo, and onion.

The sandwich was difficult to pick up, but all of the ingredients appeared to be well-balanced. There was a large serving of tomatoes, pickles, and cheese, so it didn't look like the beef patties would be overpowered. 

I thought this burger had a ton of flavor. The cheese was perfectly melted, and the patties were super juicy.

While I personally couldn't finish the entire thing, I definitely thought the flavors were there and it was a good value for the price.

If I were to change one thing, it would be to remove the mayonnaise. It ended up mixing with the juice from the tomatoes in an unappetizing way, creating a tomato-mayo sauce that I thought brought the other flavors down.

My favorite burger I tried was the Triple Whopper with cheese from Burger King.

Similar to the Dave's Triple, the Triple Whopper also comes with three quarter-pound beef patties, although the ones at Burger King are flame-grilled. The burger cost me $11.29, excluding tax, making it the second-most expensive burger I tried.

Unlike the other burgers, the Triple Whopper only comes with one slice of cheese.

However, I felt that this allowed the other flavors to really come through, and it led to a less gut-filling, more appetizing eating experience.

The lettuce, tomatoes, and onions all tasted fresh, and they added a delicious crunch to the burger.

I also liked the beef patties on this burger the most out of the ones I tried.

The burger patties had a smoky, savory flavor that made the sandwich taste fresh off the grill. I also thought the patties' shape, which were larger in circumference but flatter than some of the other burgers, made the sandwich easier to eat. 

Overall, I really enjoyed this burger and would definitely order it again — if I have the appetite.

While I'm not sure I'm happy to pay more than $10 for any fast-food burger, it was a very generous serving and the most flavorful out of the bunch, without being overwhelmingly huge.

• Max Burgers is selling less beef to address the climate crisis.
• The chain labels menu items with carbon footprints and promotes chicken and plant-based burgers.
• Between 2015 and 2021, emissions dropped 30% and meals without red meat grew to 18% of sales.

One of Sweden's oldest burger chains wants its customers to stop eating so much red meat. 

It might sound counterintuitive, but Max Burgers, a family-owned fast-food company, realized way back in 2007 that it couldn't address the climate crisis while continuing to sell as much beef. Beef has the largest climate impact of any food, largely because cows burp methane and need vast amounts of land.

Since then, Max Burgers has labeled menu items with their carbon footprints and started offering a lot more chicken and plant-based burgers. The company wants half the meals it sells to be free of red meat. It came close last year, when about 46% of meals sold across 188 locations in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Poland were red-meat-free, said Kaj Török, its chief sustainability officer. Denmark on its own surpassed the goal.

All the changes are making a dent in the chain's greenhouse-gas emissions, which dropped by 30% between 2015 and 2021. Török said Max Burgers has remained one of Sweden's most profitable restaurant chains, even as plant-based, vegetarian, or "lacto-vegetarian" options with dairy products grew to 18% of sales volume in 2021, up from 2% in 2014. 

"Until we hit the pandemic, the transformation was really fast. In the last 12 months, we've struggled to keep that percentage up," Török said, adding that he thinks customers may be choosing meat because they see it as getting more for their money during a period of high inflation.

Now the company, which is privately owned and doesn't disclose its financial information, is exploring how to communicate the health benefits of a plant-based diet.

Max Burgers' climate strategy is an outlier in the restaurant industry, particularly compared with US fast-food chains that have been quick to abandon plant-based burgers when they don't test well in small markets. Even the salad chain Sweetgreen this month added steak to its menu in hopes of boosting sales at dinnertime. A Los Angeles vegan restaurant also announced in April that it was rebranding by adding meat, dairy, and eggs to the menu.

Both Sweetgreen and the Los Angeles restaurant, now called Sage Regenerative Kitchen & Brewery, said they were focusing on "regenerative agriculture" to meet their climate commitments. Fast-food giants like McDonald's, Taco Bell, and Burger King are similarly focused on the farming practices in their supply chains.

But research is limited on the climate effects of regenerative agriculture, a loosely defined set of farming practices that aims to improve soil health so it stores more carbon, uses less chemical fertilizers and water, and boosts biodiversity.

Raychel Santo, a food and climate research associate at World Resources Institute, told Business Insider that while storing more carbon in the soil may offset some emissions from beef production, it's unlikely to offset all the emissions from a cow's life cycle. 

"There are a few studies that have even claimed carbon-negative or carbon-neutral beef, but they've only looked at the last phase of the cow's life," Santo said. 

She cited an analysis by her colleagues of research comparing the environmental effects of conventional livestock production, where cows end up on a feedlot, with "alternative" practices such as organic, pasture-raised, grass-fed, and regenerative. The analysis found that alternative practices tended to have higher total climate footprints (but better animal welfare) than conventional ones. 

"That's not to say conventional systems are better," Santo said. "It's about balancing and recognizing these trade-offs."

Santo said that either way, people in wealthy countries need to reduce their beef consumption for the world to meet its climate goals. In the US and Europe, people eat the equivalent of three and two burgers a week, respectively. Cutting that consumption in half would make a huge dent in planet-warming emissions.

Török said 'less but better beef' is the mantra of researchers he's spoke to.

He added that because Max Burgers is family-owned, it can take more risks than publicly-traded fast food chains worried about their stock price.

MAX Burgers has introduced many iterations of plant-based and chicken options to improve the taste, and scrapped those that didn't land with customers. A falafel burger launched in 2009 was eliminated several years later because it wasn't popular with consumers, for example. In 2016, the company quintupled its plant-based options, Török said, including a "green burger" that's been changed several times.

"Taste is our secret climate weapon," Török said. "If something doesn't work, we try to make it better."

• Trump vowed to commute Ross Ulbricht's sentence at the Libertarian National Convention.
• Libertarians view Ulbricht's life sentence as a symbol of government overreach.
• Trump also promised to include a Libertarian in his cabinet if elected.

Donald Trump made an address at the Libertarian National Convention on Saturday, promising to commute the sentence of Ross Ulbricht, the jailed founder of the infamous online drug marketplace Silk Road.

"If you vote for me, on Day One, I will commute the sentence of Ross Ulbricht," Trump declared to enthusiastic applause from the crowd in Washington, DC. 

The move to highlight Ulbricht was strategically catered to Libertarian voters.

Ulbricht, now 40, who was imprisoned for life in 2015, is a hero of the US libertarian movement.

The Libertarian Party, with its long-standing advocacy for drug legalization and criminal justice reform, has consistently lobbied for Ulbricht's release, viewing his life sentence as a symbol of government overreach.

Ulbricht became interested in libertarian values at university, according to a Wired report, where he discovered the ideas of Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, an advocate of the moral purpose of free-market capitalism and staunch opponent of interventionism. Ulbricht embraced these ideas of uncompromised freedom, per Wired.

"When I created Silk Road, I wasn't seeking financial gain," Ulbricht's wrote in a heartfelt letter to the trial judge in 2015.

"I created Silk Road because I believed at the time that people should have the right to buy and sell whatever they wanted so long as they weren't hurting anyone else," he wrote.

In 2015, he was given life in prison without the possibility of parole. He was also fined $183,961,921.

Ulbricht is being held at the United States Penitentiary in Tucson.

The majority of goods sold on Silk Road were illegal hardcore drugs, said the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York at his trial.

"Silk Road was supposed to be about giving people the freedom to make their own choices, to pursue their own happiness," wrote Ulbricht. "While I still don't think people should be denied this right, I never sought to create a site that would provide another avenue for people to feed their addictions."

Trump, who was loudly booed and heckled during much of his speech at the Libertarian National Convention, did manage to partially win the audience around by committing to free Ulbricht.

Katherine Yeniscavich, a Libertarian Party national committee member, told Politico, "It's one of the things we wanted from his first term."

In addition to the Ulbricht pledge, Trump made further pledges, promising to include a Libertarian in his cabinet and others in senior administrative positions if elected.

Correction: May 30, 2024 — Due to an editing error, an earlier version of this story called Ross Ulbricht "unjustly imprisoned" without making clear it was characterizing the view of his supporters.

• This post originally appeared in the Insider Today newsletter.
• You can sign up for Business Insider's daily newsletter here.

Almost Friday! You'll likely never be as rich as Nvidia's Jensen Huang, but you can start to write emails like him. More on his "TL;DR approach."

It's the last day of our Memorial Day sale for 80% off a Business Insider subscription.

In today's big story, we're looking at the wave of talent-focused deals set to shake up the AI startup market.

What's on deck:

• Markets: The biggest threat to obesity drug makers could be South Park.
• Tech: Why is a popular email service still stuck in the Stone Age? It's time to fix Gmail.
• Business: The workplace habits that annoy the hell out of your boss.

But first, forget the milk; we'll take the whole cow.

If this was forwarded to you, sign up here.

The big story

M&A(I)

In the age of AI, if you can't hire them, acquire them.

Few things are more coveted in business nowadays than AI specialists. Everyone wants to supercharge their business with generative AI.

But with only so many AI specialists, the talent doesn't come easy. Compensation is steep — seven-figure pay packages — and competition is even fiercer. You know it's serious when Mark Zuckerberg is getting involved in recruiting.

So why worry about one AI specialist when you can get a company full of them?

The future of the AI industry could be a wave of "acquihires," writes Business Insider's Rebecca Torrence and Riddhi Kanetkar, who mapped out potential buyers and sellers in the space.

The M&A(I) industry is already off to a hot start this year, with 55 exits for AI startups in the first quarter, according to Crunchbase data.

And it's not just cutting-edge tech companies that are shopping. Acquihires give non-tech companies a chance to jumpstart an AI strategy that'd be difficult to stand up otherwise.

Acquihires come with plenty of risks.

Deals can be tricky in the best of circumstances, let alone in an overvalued market with high interest rates.

Companies looking to cut a deal are also flying a bit blind. VCs eagerness to back AI startups means there are plenty of companies big on valuation but little on substance.

And then there's the risk the people acquired aren't a good fit.

Technologists have the luxury of being particular about their work culture. Remember when OpenAI employees weren't pumped about potentially working at Microsoft amid the Altman ouster?

But some startups might not have a choice if funding gets tight and an acquihire is their only option. And if that's the case, that's a problem, Julia Gudish Krieger, a managing partner at Pari Passu Venture Partners, told me.

She's rarely seen acquihires work because the motivation for the deal is often more about getting a soft landing than having a passion for the product they'll be promoting or building in their new roles.

"If there are real synergies and the incoming group is genuinely excited to roll up their sleeves and help co-create, then I'm sure an acquihire can be magic in theory," Gudish Krieger said. "But this is easier said than done."

3 things in markets

1. Oh my god! They killed Novo Nordisk! South Park's latest Ozempic storyline could be bad news for obesity drug makers and their investors. Publicly traded US companies prominently featured on the comedy show have gone on to underperform the S&P 500.
2. The stock market and the economy are going their separate ways. Corporate earnings show continued growth despite a GDP slowdown. While rare, the divergence of the two typically means a great environment for investors. The S&P 500 has historically delivered average quarterly returns of 3.6% when that happens.
3. Don't expect stocks to slow down in June, according to Fundstrat. The always-optimistic Tom Lee sees the stock market rising 4% next month. Continued disinflation coupled with lots of cash sitting on the sidelines means the market has more room to run despite reaching record highs. Here's what else has him so bullish.

3 things in tech

1. Summer fit check: tech edition. In a wild turn of events, tech executives are grabbing (good) attention for their style. Fashion experts shared how tech workers can upgrade their often monotone wardrobes.
2. Gmail is stuck in the Stone Age. When Google introduced the tabbed inbox in 2013, it was a game changer. There was finally a way to separate important emails from the clutter. But in the decade since, Gmail has failed to keep up.
3. Apple comes under pressure. A group of French trade associations have implored CEO Tim Cook to halt the rollout of a new "web eraser" feature, over fears it could have a catastrophic impact on the online advertising industry. The tool would allow Safari users to remove unwanted content like ads, text, and images from webpages.

3 things in business

1. A bizarre government rule is preventing young men from getting jobs. America's young men aren't working. Recessions and low wages could be to blame, but our broken unemployment system might ultimately be making employers reluctant to hire them.
2. Your boss probably thinks you're annoying, too. As much as your boss gets on your nerves, chances are you're not completely innocent. From complaining to asking too many questions, career experts shared with BI the employee behaviors that drive bosses crazy.
3. Elon Musk in the White House? Donald Trump and the Tesla CEO have discussed a potential advisory role if the ex-president wins November's presidential election, The Wall Street Journal reported. Trump could give Musk input on border security and economic policies, per the outlet.

In other news

• The real reason Americans can't get enough sleep.
• Inside Henrik Fisker's staff meeting, where the CEO announced more layoffs hitting his electric car company.
• Biden's $1 billion weapons package to Israel is coming back to haunt him.
• A software engineer worked at Tesla, SAP, and Salesforce. Here's how he negotiated his salary, including a $520,000 Meta offer.
• We had cellphones, then feature phones, then smartphones. Now, 'IntelliPhones' are coming.
• A millennial who had a mini-retirement at 38 shares her strategies for achieving financial independence — and why she wants to return to the workforce.

What's happening today

• Today's earnings: Costco, Best Buy, and other companies are reporting.

The Insider Today team: Dan DeFrancesco, deputy editor and anchor, in New York. Jordan Parker Erb, editor, in New York. Hallam Bullock, editor, in London. George Glover, reporter, in London. Grace Lett, associate editor, in Chicago.

• Congressional Staff for a Ceasefire Now is a group of more than 150 Capitol Hill staffers.
• One organizer told BI they've protested on Capitol Hill to amplify their constituents' voices.
• They also say the organizing has given staff an excuse to stay during an otherwise difficult time.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with an organizer involved with Congressional Staff for a Ceasefire Now, a group of Capitol Hill staffers pressuring lawmakers to support a cease-fire in Gaza. The staffer has been granted anonymity in order to speak freely without fear of retaliation from their office. This essay has been edited for length and clarity.

At the end of October, when we saw how Israel was beginning to conduct its war in Gaza, I and several other staffers on Capitol Hill were really, really concerned.

We had heard from thousands upon thousands of constituents who were writing to us, emailing us, calling us, and commenting on our offices' social media accounts, urging our bosses to call for a cease-fire in Gaza.

There was initially just a group of four or five of us that were ready to do something, which gradually grew to a group of roughly a dozen staffers.

Our first major action was a flower vigil on the House steps on November 7, one month after the Hamas attack on Israel. The goal was to directly confront lawmakers with the fact that there is dissent among their staff with how they are handling this, while making it clear that we don't stand by our bosses' decisions to whitewash this and to look the other way.

We recognized not just the civilian lives lost in Gaza, but also the 1,200 civilian lives lost in Israel during the horrible attacks on October 7. We laid 10,000 flowers — one for each civilian in both Israel and Gaza who had been killed at that point.

Our group has since grown to more than 150 staffers, and we've taken several other actions and demonstrations. In February, after the US cut off funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), we held a fundraiser that brought in more than $8,500. We've also read the names of more than 300 infants who've been killed in Gaza.

This month, we marched to the steps of the Capitol before a vote on a bill to force President Joe Biden to provide withheld aid to Israel, insisting that Congress try to save Rafah instead.

During our public demonstrations, many of us — including me — wear items such as masks or sunglasses in order to maintain our anonymity.

My boss is largely convinced that they're right on most things. But they've been willing to listen.

I work for a House Democrat who has endorsed Biden's plan for a negotiated, two-sided cease-fire — but that's absolutely not far enough.

I believe Israel has not only an obligation but a responsibility to unilaterally implement a cease-fire and conduct itself differently in this conflict if they actually are hoping to secure hostages and eliminate Hamas.

I also believe that somewhere between one-third to one-half of the more than 90 lawmakers who have called for a cease-fire — including my boss — have used that term under pressure, and use varying definitions of the term that avoid placing the responsibility on Israel to actually secure one.

There are varying degrees to which lawmakers are willing to listen to their staffers on this issue. My own boss is stubborn and largely convinced that they're right on most things, but they've been willing to listen, which I admire them for. To that end, we've had several staff-level conversations over the last several months.

Recently, I told my boss that they should be focusing more on the reality on the ground today rather than just continuing to harken back to October 7.

Some senior staff in my office seem to know I'm involved with this effort — and they've made comments here and there to prove it. But I'm almost positive that the lawmaker I work for doesn't know, and that if they did, there would be genuine repercussions.

If they're not listening to us in our offices, we have to find a way to get through to them.

Some people say that it's not our place as staff to be doing any of this, and that it's simply our job to carry out our boss's wishes.

When it's constituents saying this, I understand: They don't understand exactly how congressional offices work, they don't know how Congress functions. But I think it is an argument in bad faith when it's made by other staffers or by lawmakers.

We are the people engaging with constituents. Members of Congress aren't on the phones, do not respond to emails, and do not respond to social media comments in almost all cases. We have seen an unprecedented influx of constituent sentiment in support of a cease-fire, and in some lawmakers' offices, that sentiment is not being listened to at the most senior level.

So if they're not listening to us at our offices, we have to find a way to get through to them.

We want to show that at all levels of our government — from civilians, to staffers, to administration officials, to military members who have resigned in protest of this conflict and the way it's being handled — there is dissent, and there is a price to pay for not listening to your constituents.

If there's a sliver of a chance that you can make a difference, I believe you have a duty to stay.

Others might say that if we don't agree with what our bosses are doing then we should quit. But it's not that simple.

If you're high profile enough where you can make a national story by quitting at the State Department, the White House, or the military, that can be a really important and impactful decision to make.

But if you're an office where there is even a sliver of a chance of making a difference, I believe you have a duty to stay there. You don't know who's going to step in and replace you in that job. You don't know if they're going to hire someone who just does not believe in the humanity of the Palestinian people.

Personally, I haven't considered resigning, but I've drawn personal lines for myself: I won't write content that I feel is grossly out of line with the human values that I support.

Thankfully, I work in an office where — slowly but surely — it seems like the ship is turning. Even though I think my boss is turning a blind eye to more things that I'm comfortable with, I continue to believe that their mind is still changing and is not rigid on this. That is enough for me to see a reason to stay on.

For the most part, staff are not wholly responsible, or even largely responsible, for the votes that their bosses take.

We have already made an impact

One thing that's been really reassuring for me is how cross-cutting this issue is, especially at a time when politics is more polarized than ever.

We've had Democrats and Republicans at some of our House protests, as well as Israelis and Palestinians, people who are Jewish or Muslim, who are every religion and identity in between.

I think that staff action, and demonstrating how constituents are feeling about this issue, is responsible for having so many members of Congress not only calling for cease-fire in one way one form or another, but actually being comfortable for the very first time in history with the idea of conditioning aid to Israel.

We've given staff the courage to speak up in their offices and to have those kinds of conversations with their bosses. And I think that we have been essential to providing staff an excuse to stay in a time when working in this institution is incredibly difficult.

Unless and until the government is responding to constituents, we continue to plan to be their voice in the halls of power.

• American Airlines is rolling out a new premium-heavy cabin on its future Boeing 787 aircraft.
• Upgrades include sliding doors in business class and more privacy in premium economy.
• The highly-anticipated design improves upon the carrier's older, but still competitive Dreamliners.

After years of poor customer service strategies and dated cabins, American Airlines has been developing new products and technologies to improve its operations — especially as business travel continues to rebound.

Among its most anticipated upgrades is a brand-new three-class cabin coming to its future Boeing 787-9 Dreamliners, with improvements like sliding doors in the "Flagship Suite" business class and more privacy and storage in premium economy.

The design will also be retrofitted onto existing Boeing 777-300ERs and Airbus A321Ts, American's transcontinental jet. The airline will eventually replace the latter with the yet-to-be-certified Airbus A321XLR, which will also come equipped with the Flagship Suites.

However, American will leave its existing 787 cabins — which are less premium-heavy — as is.

This means the 787-9 Dreamliners will differ across the fleet, but a buttoned-up soft product will create consistency across the planes and keep the current cabin competitive with mainline rivals like Delta Air Lines.

American has about 60 Boeing 787 Dreamliners in its fleet. Another 3 equipped with the new cabin should be delivered this year.

The airline initially had six Dreamliners scheduled for delivery, but ongoing quality issues on Boeing's 787s have delayed some deliveries.

As a result, some international flights were cut, with routes like New York to Rome and Buenos Aires both losing a daily frequency. Meanwhile, seasonal flights, like Dallas/Fort Worth to Kona, Hawaii, will not fly at all this winter.

All of American's 787-9s, existing and future, have 3 classes: business, premium economy, and regular coach.

The cabin retrofits throughout American's fleet will effectively eliminate international first-class — a product the airline said in 2022 that customers simply weren't buying.

In its place, American has added more premium seats — upping business class from 30 seats on the current 787s to 51 in the new Flagship version.

The biggest differences are at the front of the plane in business class, with the Flagship Suite adding sliding doors and a 'preferred' first row.

The current 787-9s feature American's staple Flagship Business product without the Flagship Suites, while the future 787-9s will feature the same Flagship Business brand but with the new Flagship Suite and the special front-row preferred seat.

The main new feature is the door. Airlines worldwide, like Air India, British Airways, Qatar Airways, and now American, have embraced the sliding door in a bid to attract customers who prioritize privacy.

Delta Air Lines boasts a sliding door in some of its Delta One seats, though United Airlines has yet to add the perk to its Polaris business-class product.

American says the 'distinguished front row experience' builds on the Flagship Suite by adding more space and exclusive amenities.

The special amenities, which will also be on the Boeing 777s, include a Nest Bedding mattress pad and pajamas, a throw blanket, a memory foam pillow, and an exclusive amenity kit.

The Flagship Suite Preferred is a "business plus"-type seat seen on other carriers like JetBlue Airways and Virgin Atlantic Airways but without the pizzazz of a second companion seat to dine or chat with friends or meet with colleagues.

The doors and exclusive first row are absent from the current 787-9s, but the jets still have the expected amenities like televisions and beds.

All the carrier's 787-9 business class seats are lie-flat with a television and an accompanying remote, WiFi, storage, an adjustable tray table, power, and tabletop space.

The Flagship version offers more overall space and luxe touches, like wood designs and the staple American branding.

Plus, the 1x2x1 seating configuration will remain consistent, meaning every passenger will have direct aisle access.

Carriers like Air India, British Airways, and Germany's Lufthansa still sport dated business class cabins with window seats that are boxed in.

This can inconvenience the aisle seat passenger if the window seat customer has to go to the lavatory or stretch their legs.

While the hard product differs considerably, American is introducing consistency in the soft product.

Over Memorial Day weekend, American introduced a new inflight experience for business and premium economy cabins on more than 300 international and transcontinental flights — not just the 787.

The strategy, which was based on customer feedback and relies on a rotating collection of amenities, touches everything from bedding to dining.

While Flagship First is being sunset across the fleet and is not on 787s, the cabin will get its own set of luxe amenities like more bedding and pajamas.

Business class will get luxury amenity kits, a dual-sided pillow, new international cuisines, and slippers, among other perks.

The dual-sided pillow was developed based on customer preference to have different materials on each side, so American added a cool-touch fabric on one side and a traditional fabric on the other.

Behind business class is the premium economy cabin, which American introduced in 2016.

The company's current and future 787s will both have premium economy, the latter sporting 32 seats — 11 more than what is on existing Dreamliners.

American said customer demand drove the capacity increase.

Significant changes include adding a winged headrest for better privacy and a larger seatback screen.

The existing Dreamliners have 38 inches of pitch, 19 inches of width, and a large adjustable headrest without the wings.

Both cabins will sport a 2×3×2 layout.

However, the new product will carry over the footrest, power ports, and TV remote.

Based on the renderings, American's new premium economy will add a cubby between the seats for more storage.

Some American premium economy seats also have a legrest.

Similar to business, premium economy travelers will get an enhanced soft product with a new amenity kit, a lumbar pillow, and a throw blanket.

The new amenities are cabin-specific, with both business and premium economy getting headphones but the latter receiving "noise-reducing" versus the former's "noise-canceling."

Stretching to the back of American's 787 planes is the regular economy cabin. The old Dreamliners will have more coach seats.

American designed its new Dreamliners to be more premium-heavy, catering to a growing demand for premium leisure products and a rebound in business travel.

The new planes will have 161 regular economy seats, The Points Guy reported. That compares to the 234 seats on the current 787s, according to American.

This includes extra legroom and regular coach seats, which have 35 and 31 inches of pitch, respectively. The legroom is competitive with Delta and United.

The old economy product also has a handheld remote accompanying the seatback screen. A video of the new seats doesn't show a remote.

The current 787-9 aircraft have a television with a handheld remote, but a video on American's YouTube channel showing the future economy cabin does not show a remote installed on the seatback nor in the armrest.

American told Business Insider in an email statement on Wednesday that details surrounding the remote are not yet public.

Both economy versions, however, will sport new amenities, including a fleece blanket and a pillow.

American didn't leave out regular coach when it made all of its soft product upgrades to business and premium economy.

American customers flying on its 787 can expect the old cabin until the new Dreamliners arrive — including on a new route to Australia.

American announced in February that it would launch its first-ever route to Brisbane, Australia, in October, flying daily from its hub at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport.

The route would use American's newly delivered Dreamliners, which are equipped with the Flagship Suites and upgraded premium economy, but the plan has been scrapped.

Instead, an existing 787 will fly the inaugural journey until American eventually gets its highly-anticipated new Dreamliners.

• "There could be hell to pay" if private credit markets wobble, Jamie Dimon said.
• He warned that there are bad actors in the industry, and they'll likely be the source of any issues.
• "I don't think it's systemic, but I do expect there to be problems."

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon said private credit could spark turmoil if the opaque sector of financial markets weakens. 

"There could be hell to pay," he said at a conference on Wednesday. "I've seen a couple of these deals that were rated by a rating agency and, I have to confess, it shocked me what they got rated. So, it reminds me a little bit of mortgages."

The private credit market—a corner of finance dominated by non-bank lenders who originate loans to private businesses—has grown rapidly in recent years. Although returns on these assets have increasingly outpaced the S&P 500 since the early 2000s, risks in the industry are not well known, the IMF noted in April.

In Dimon's view, some players in the space are "brilliant," and the sector succeeds in filling financial needs for firms that may be overlooked by larger institutions. 

"But not all the people doing it are good," Dimon said. "And the problems in financial markets are often caused by the 'not good one,' the people that make the mistakes."

Issues could start to crop up as retail investors are increasingly exposed to the space and come face-to-face with private-credit assets that might be illiquid, improperly marked, or not stress-tested, he said.

"Retail clients tend to circle the block and call their senators and congressmen," Dimon said, and later concluded: "

At the same time, JPMorgan is looking to step deeper into this space itself, with the bank looking to acquire a private-credit firm to grow its footprint in the sector, Bloomberg reported. According to the outlet, the lender has also put aside $10 billion for direct lending.

• Staatsburgh was the home of financier Ogden Mills and his wife, socialite Ruth Livingston Mills.
• The Gilded Age mansion, completed in Dutchess County, New York, in 1896, features 79 rooms.
• The Mills had tickets for the Titanic's second trip, which never happened since it sank in 1912.

When New York City socialite Ruth Livingston Mills inherited her family's country estate known as Staatsburgh in 1890, she felt it wasn't grand enough to entertain her sophisticated friends.

With the help of her husband, financier Ogden Mills, she oversaw a massive renovation that transformed the home into a Gilded Age mansion modeled after the royal palaces of Europe.

Located in Staatsburg, New York, about 100 miles from New York City, Staatsburgh is now a museum that continues to preserve the home's extravagant furnishings and rich history. Take a look inside.

Staatsburgh, once the fall home of Ogden Mills and Ruth Livingston Mills, offers guided tours of the historic estate.

Adult tickets for hour-long tours cost $10 each and can be reserved online. The full schedule is available on Staatsburgh's official website.

I entered through the gift shop, which was full of apparel, accessories, and books about the Hudson Valley.

Unlike other historic mansions I've toured where the visitor's center is located in what was once a guest house or carriage house, Staatsburgh's reception desk is on the ground floor of the original home itself.

The tour began in an exhibition space on the first floor, where our tour guide gave us a brief history of the Mills family.

Ruth Livingston Mills came from "old money." The Livingston family descended from Scottish nobles, and their ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War and signed the Declaration of Independence. Ruth's great-grandfather, Morgan Lewis, served as the third governor of New York and purchased the Staatsburgh estate in 1792. Ruth inherited the home in 1890, according to Staatsburgh's official website.

Ogden Mills was known as "new money," a financier who served as President Herbert Hoover's Secretary of the Treasury.

Ruth and Ogden wed in 1882 and had three children.

The room also featured a section about the Titanic, which the couple had tickets for.

Ruth and Ogden Mills had tickets for the Titanic's second voyage, but it never happened since the ship sank on its maiden voyage in 1912.

Staatsburgh offers special "Tales of the Titanic" mansion tours led by costumed guides.

We then walked outside, where our guide shared that the grass surrounding the opulent home used to be farmland.

When Ruth inherited the house, the backyard was planted with corn. In order to prepare the residence for entertaining her posh New York City guests, she had the crops replanted elsewhere on the property.

The estate grounds are now known as Mills Memorial State Park.

Our guide also pointed out ongoing preservation efforts on the home's exterior.

In the 1950s, Staatsburgh's exterior was sprayed with gunite to preserve the facade. However, the active ingredient in gunite is asbestos, and it turned the house gray.

The white area in the photo above shows where the asbestos has been abated. Most of the front of the home has been restored, but the project is ongoing.

Staatsburgh's two wings were added in 1895, expanding the home from 25 rooms to 79.

The renovation cost $350,000 in 1895, or about $11 million in today's dollars.

When I walked into the entrance hall, the well-preserved decor transported me back to the Gilded Age.

The English oak wood paneling on the walls was meant to evoke the decor of English royalty.

Ruth hung portraits of her prominent ancestors in the entryway to impress her guests.

The portrait on the far left depicts Morgan Lewis, the third governor of New York and Ruth's great-grandfather. Next to him is his daughter, Margaret.

Next to Margaret is Judge Robert Livingston, a statesman and attorney, followed by Chancellor Robert Livingston, who helped draft the Declaration of Independence, swore in President George Washington, and negotiated the Louisiana Purchase under President Thomas Jefferson.

The grand staircase was reminiscent of the one on the Titanic.

The last three steps were wider than the others to leave room for women's gowns to cascade behind them in elegant, dramatic entrances.

A side table featured an issue of The Boston Daily Globe with a headline about the Titanic sinking, emphasizing the family's connection to the tragedy.

Ruth's cousin, John Jacob Astor, was the richest man in the world when he died in the Titanic disaster. His body was recovered two weeks later, identified by the initials sewn into his jacket and the engraved gold watch in his pocket.

Ascending the stairs provided a wider view of the entrance hall.

The furniture was arranged differently when the Mills family took up residence there, but everything in the room was original to the home.

The painted ceiling on the stairwell concealed a 10,000-gallon water tank above.

The home had its own water system with a pump house on the property that filtered water into a steel-reinforced tank.

Female visitors stayed in guest bedrooms upstairs, while male visitors slept downstairs.

Alice Roosevelt was good friends with the Mills' twin daughters and a frequent guest at Staatsburgh.

A replica of a maid's room was built on the second floor by lowering the ceiling and narrowing the walls to display the smaller space.

Maids slept on the third floor, while male servants such as footmen and butlers slept downstairs. Servants at Staatsburgh worked six days a week and had their own rooms, a rarity in the Gilded Age.

The male servants' quarters on the ground level included a dining room, lounge, and kitchen suite.

The male servants' quarters were used as the New York State Parks Taconic Regional Headquarters until 2009, and the area is undergoing restoration.

Before dinner, guests would line up in the oval room to be escorted into the dining room.

A detail-oriented hostess, Ruth would be at the front of the line to be escorted into dinner by the highest-ranking gentleman.

Our tour group gasped in awe upon walking into the stunning dining room, exactly as Ruth Mills intended.

The green Italian and French marble walls were decorated with 18th-century Belgian tapestries. The Mills would also decorate the room with plants from their greenhouse.

The floor was constructed with 1-inch-thick Vermont marble to deaden the sounds of the kitchen below.

The table was set with the Mills family's original Tiffany & Co. china.

The table could seat up to 30 people when fully extended. Meals lasted around two hours and included eight to 10 courses of mostly French cuisine.

The gilded ceilings were embellished with ornate gold designs.

Typical of the Gilded Age, even the ceilings were works of art.

The base of the fireplace was decorated with Chinese guardian lion statues known as foo dogs.

The bronze lion statues had brass eyes that glowed when the sun shone on them.

Servants took food to the dining room via a dumbwaiter in the butler's pantry.

Located off the dining room, the butler's pantry featured a speaking tube for communication with the kitchen.

The butler's pantry included a display of Titanic china set replicas.

Different classes of passengers on the Titanic dined off different china patterns.

We then moved into the drawing room, named for where the family and guests would withdraw after dinner.

Our tour guide described the drawing room as Ruth's "she shed" where female family members and guests would socialize and take tea.

Our guide pointed out how the backs of the chairs were not as faded as the seats because of the upright posture women maintained.

Women's corsets in the Gilded Age didn't enable them to fully sit down.

She also pointed out the oldest artifact in the room: a set of three ancient Greek urns.

The urns date back to 400 to 600 BCE.

The Mills family would play games of bridge in their ornate library.

Their collection of books included rare artifacts such as George Washington's diaries.

Ruth also had a French-style boudoir, a private space to write correspondence and plan parties.

A large portrait of Ruth hung on the wall on the left.

Ruth's bedroom was modeled after royal palaces in Europe, with her bed up on a pedestal and the walls upholstered with damask silk.

Her and Ogden's suites were on the main level, which was unusual in the Gilded Age, but Ruth had a heart condition that made it difficult for her to go up and down flights of stairs.

The tour ended with Ogden's room, which was noticeably smaller and less ostentatious than Ruth's.

Ogden called Ruth "Tiny," and her nickname for him was "Sweet."

Even though Staatsburgh was just a two-hour drive from New York City, I felt like I'd visited a European palace.

According to our tour guide, 95% of the items inside Staatsburgh are authentic to the home and the Mills family, providing a historically accurate portrayal of how the wealthiest members of high society lived during the Gilded Age.

• A dated-looking 1950s-era home in tech billionaire hot spot Palo Alto is listed for $2 million.
• Its listing agent posted a video tour that shocked people, who said its look didn't match its price.
• The agent said the ask is typical for the area, where owners include Mark Zuckerberg and Larry Page.

The adage "location, location, location" is especially true in California, where a property's ZIP code can significantly impact its price tag.

Case in point: a newly listed 1950s-era home in Palo Alto that's causing a stir on social media — not for its beauty but for its $2 million price tag.

The 5,311-square-foot, three-bedroom home is located in Palo Alto's Barron Park neighborhood, which neighborhood ranking site Niche describes as a hip residential area with a population of just under 5,000.

One of the few original residences left on its block, the house has wood-paneled walls and vintage floral wallpaper, with floors covered in scuffed hardwood and green shag carpeting.

When the property hit the market earlier this month, listing agent Olivia McNally posted a video of it on Instagram, revealing its asking price would be $2 million. To McNally's surprise, her clip received 11.9 million views, 219,000 shares, and 40,500 comments.

Many social-media users expressed disbelief that an outdated-seeming house in a modest-looking California neighborhood could fetch such a steep price.

"You can buy 20 of those in the Midwest for the same amount," one user wrote. Another asked, "Is this a joke?"

McNally, a real-estate agent in the San Francisco Bay Area who represents the home's seller, told Business Insider that the skeptics and naysayers simply don't understand Palo Alto's real-estate market.

Palo Alto, known as the birthplace of Silicon Valley, lies at the epicenter of the tech universe. The city of about 69,000 residents sits 35 miles southeast of San Francisco and serves as the headquarters of many tech giants, including Apple, HP, and Intel.

It's also home to many billionaires, including Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Roku founder and CEO Anthony Wood. Consequently, property values in the area are among the highest in the nation.

Redfin data shows the median sale price in Palo Alto reached $3.4 million in April, far above the US median sale price of $432,900 during the same time period.

Despite its condition, the home at 604 Chimalus Drive is incredibly desirable — in part because of the land on which it sits.

"In the Bay Area, there's hardly any land left," McNally told Business Insider. "When land does become available, people will pay a premium for the dirt. That's really what they're buying here — the dirt in this Barron Park neighborhood."

McNally said that the home's seller inherited the property from her parents, who owned it for 59 years. Initially, she planned to keep it and rent it out. However, as managing the property became difficult, she thought it would be wiser to sell it and create generational wealth for her children.

The property has already attracted 10 offers, McNally said on Tuesday, nine of which are all cash and free of contingencies.

With many offers surpassing the home's asking price, she foresees a bidding war and expects a swift sale.

"When you find a property like this — well under market value — you can either do one of two things: either completely fix it up, or tear it down and rebuild it," she said. "Obviously, a developer is going to rebuild it and sell it off to someone else."