On a cold and rainy night in November, over 2,000 people trekked to a nondescript arena on Long Island for some Christmas cheer.

They were there for the Great American Family Christmas Festival, an event put on by the cable TV network of the same name. For five weekends, the festival transformed the UBS Arena into a holiday wonderland complete with ice skating, fire pits, igloos, $20 spiked cider, and obviously, Santa.

But the main draw on opening night was an appearance from former "Full House" star and current GAF mainstay Candace Cameron Bure, who was on hand to light the Christmas tree and greet her fans, who paid anywhere from $15 to $249 for the experience.

"It's not about standing in line to get an autograph from a celebrity. We're just there to enhance the family experience," Bure told Business Insider over the phone in December. "It's really a place to come with your family and friends and feel like you're in a little Christmas movie."

She would know. With over 15 holiday movies to her name across Hallmark and GAF and a role as chief creative officer at GAF's parent company Great American Media, Bure has built her second act at the center of the Christmas movie industrial complex. After years of laying the groundwork, business is booming: Variety reported in 2022 that Bure was making around $1 million a year for her exclusive Hallmark deal before she joined ex-Hallmark boss Bill Abbott's relaunch of Great American Family that year for a sum reported to be "nearly double that."

Bure got in on the ground floor of what was once a cottage industry, providing a blueprint for other actors looking to reinvigorate their careers and make some relatively fast money while spreading holiday cheer. Others have followed suit: "Mean Girls" star Lacey Chabert has spent more than a decade building her career as one of Hallmark's — and now Netflix's — leading holiday ladies; erstwhile teen heartthrob Chad Michael Murray likes working on Christmas movies for their relative stability while raising a family; Lindsay Lohan returned to acting with her first major film role in years in the 2022 Netflix Christmas movie "Falling for Christmas" (she followed it up with another one, "Our Little Secret," in 2024).

In an industry that's constantly in flux, the holiday movie's heartwarming tried-and-true formula can be as comforting to actors looking for steady work as it is to audiences watching at home on their couches. Christmas comes every year, after all.

Candace Cameron Bure set the blueprint as one of the original queens of Christmas

Bure's reign as the queen of Christmas started more than a decade after the end of "Full House" with the 2008 Hallmark Christmas movie "Moonlight and Mistletoe." At the time, Bure wasn't thinking about being the queen of anything — she was just grateful for a job.

After taking a self-imposed hiatus from Hollywood to have children and build a family — she called it her "10-year retirement" — holiday movies provided Bure a relatively gentle runway back into the working world.

As far as jobs in Hollywood go, acting in a Christmas movie is a fairly predictable and stable gig: The typical made-for-TV holiday movie has a 15-day shoot that takes place over three weeks. While the days are long, it's still far less of a time commitment than a feature film, which can shoot for several months, or a multi-cam sitcom like "Full House," which had Bure rehearsing an entire week before filming a single 30-minute episode in front of a live audience.

Bure's timing was also auspicious: It was the start of Hallmark's golden era, when Abbott, then the head of Hallmark's parent company Crown Media, would go on to launch the network's genre-defining Countdown to Christmas campaign. By Bure's fourth or fifth Christmas movie, she realized it would be wise to refocus her career around her newfound holiday niche.

"Realizing that the numbers were successful, the viewership's successful, and it was a growing genre was like, 'OK, this is a great little pocket to stay in,'" Bure told BI.

Since then, Bure has starred in dozens more Hallmark movies, including more than 10 Christmas titles, before leaving the network to join Abbott at GAF in 2022, where's she starring in and producing films under her Candy Rock Entertainment banner.

Though Bure wouldn't share numbers with BI, she acknowledged that she's "very, very pleased" with how her pay has grown since her "Moonlight and Mistletoe" days.

"It's 15 years of work in the genre," she said, "and just like anyone's salary and their value, it goes up."

Pay for actors is solid — and there's plenty of opportunity

Even for actors who didn't get in on the ground floor like Bure, a pivot to Christmasland can be a smart career move. The entertainment industry, ever an unstable business, is in a particularly volatile era due to the 2023 Hollywood strikes, which won some benefits and protections for actors and writers but also led to declining production, resulting in fewer jobs and budget cuts.

Yet the market for original holiday movies is only growing. Lisa Hamilton Daly, the executive vice president of programming at Hallmark Media, said in an email statement to BI that 2024 was the company's biggest holiday season yet, with over 40 new movies debuting across its two networks and streaming service. It's a significant increase since Countdown to Christmas officially launched in 2009 with only four movies on the Hallmark Channel.

It's not just Hallmark, either. More networks and streamers are hopping on the holiday bandwagon than ever before. Abbott, the former Hallmark executive who now heads Great American Family, called the rapid growth in the space remarkable. "Everybody's seeing what we were involved with early on and now the appetite for the viewer to experience Christmas in an entertainment way is almost insatiable," he said.

For actors, appearing in a Christmas movie can provide "an element of financial security," said Jennifer Goldhar, the owner of Characters Talent Agency. Goldhar's company is based in Canada, where many Christmas movies are filmed, and many working Canadian actors make them their day-to-day livelihoods. She said a conservative midrange estimate for a holiday movie lead's salary — not a tentpole figure like Bure or Lacey Chabert, who command a lot more — is $150,000. Not exactly a blockbuster star-level payday, but still a solid payout for what's usually only a three-week commitment.

Sarah Ramos, an actor who has starred in Hallmark's "A Kismet Christmas" and "Christmas in Notting Hill," agrees the pay isn't too shabby for 15 days of work: "If you're getting a chunk of change and you're going to have fun, maybe travel somewhere too, that's not a bad deal."

Christmas movie sets are a 'well-oiled machine,' and the mood is usually light

Working in a Christmas wonderland can also do wonders for your mental health. Chad Michael Murray, who most recently starred in Netflix's stripper-hunk Christmas movie "The Merry Gentlemen," told BI that he likes working on holiday movies because there's less risk of encountering heavy subject matter that will bleed over into his personal life.

He recalled his experience shooting the 2016 Western "Outlaws and Angels," after which Murray said it took him a month to emotionally release himself from the character. He doesn't want to go through that again anytime soon.

"At this point in my life where I am, I got three young kids, this is what speaks to me. I love going home and being able to bring light to the situation," Murray said.

Podcaster Danny Pellegrino, who wrote and starred in his first Hallmark movie, 2024's "Deck the Walls," said his experience on set was surprisingly pleasant.

"You hear stories about being on movie sets, and so I was looking around thinking, 'Who's going to be dramatic? Where's the trouble going to be?' But everything was so smooth," Pellegrino said. "Everything is just a well-oiled machine."

Christmas movies have a cheesy reputation, but it probably won't damage yours

Though starring in a Christmas movie will never have the gravitas of a Scorsese movie, it's no longer taboo to say you enjoy holiday movies or want to be in one. Even Anne Hathaway is "desperate" to make a great Christmas movie, calling it her "weird bucket list thing" — and she already crossed "get an Oscar" off that same list.

Goldhar credits major streamers like Netflix entering the game with improving the genre's esteem. "That ups the game a little bit for people, and they see it differently," she said.

Of course, there's still a risk of typecasting where "somebody may seem more of a Hallmark type and so they don't get cast in mainstream television," Goldhar said. But that's less of an issue for already established actors with an extensive body of work — former teen heartthrobs like Murray, or "Beverly Hills 90210" star Jason Priestley, for example.

Ramos, who's best known for starring as Haddie Braverman on the 2010s NBC drama "Parenthood," admitted that when she was first approached for a Hallmark movie, she was hesitant.

"My first instinct was snobby, and I was like, no, I'm not going to do this. This is embarrassing. These aren't real movies, they're TV movies," Ramos said. She stressed over whether creators she wanted to work with would turn their noses up upon hearing she'd been in a Hallmark movie.

"Then I kind of realized, I don't know what good me trying to impress ['The White Lotus' creator] Mike White or whatever quote-unquote legitimate directors is doing for me," she said. "They kind of still weren't hiring me."

In fact, the opposite happened. Christopher Storer, the creator of FX's hit series "The Bear," was one of the people encouraging Ramos to do the Hallmark movie when she put it to a poll vote on her Instagram.

"He was like, 'I really want to learn how to make these,' and was basically like, 'Go for it,'" Ramos recalled.

Then he hired her for a recurring role on "The Bear."

• 2024 was full of great movies.
• Big spectacles like "Wicked" and "Dune: Part Two" captured viewers' and critics' attention.
• Smaller dramas like "Civil War" and "The Substance" also packed a punch and prompted discourse online.

Giant sandworms! Singing witches! Horny tennis players! The best movies of 2024 offered a wide array of cinematic pleasures — and a double dose of Zendaya.

Below are Business Insider's best movies of 2024. Scroll to the end to see entertainment correspondent Jason Guerrasio and senior editor Caralynn Matassa's personal top five movies of the year.

"A Complete Unknown"

Almost twenty years after director James Mangold gave us the Johnny Cash biopic "Walk the Line," he's returned to the space with a look at Bob Dylan's transition from acoustic to electric.

As much as the music will dazzle Dylan fans, it's the acting that's the highlight. Timothée Chalamet delivers one of the best performances burgeoning career, getting Dylan's voice and mannerisms down perfectly. — Jason Guerrasio

"A Different Man"

Sebastian Stan gives one of two standout performances this year in "A Different Man." The surreal, twisty psychological thriller follows Stan as Edward, an introverted, struggling actor with neurofibromatosis (a disorder causing facial differences) who is cured through an experimental procedure. Reinventing himself as "Guy" doesn't quite give him the dream life he'd hoped for, though.

The darkly comic film from writer-director Aaron Schimberg also features great supporting performances from Renate Reinsve (who had her breakthrough in 2021's "The Worst Person in the World") and Adam Pearson as Oswald, a confident and charismatic man who also has neurofibromatosis. — Caralynn Matassa

"Alien: Romulus"

For this latest trek back into the sci-fi world of "Alien," director Fede Álvarez takes full advantage of the IP by weaving a story that touches on the original movie and the world of "Prometheus." The result is a thrill ride that will satisfy fans of the franchise and scare the hell out of the newbies who have never seen an "Alien" movie. — JG

"Anora"

Sean Baker made a name for himself as one of the most acclaimed independent filmmakers, and for good reason. He excels at slice-of-life movies (2017's "The Florida Project" and 2021's criminally underrated "Red Rocket") that spotlight marginalized communities.

His latest, "Anora," centers on the titular sex worker played by "Scream 5" standout Mikey Madison. The film landed the Palme d'Or, the Cannes Film Festival's highest honor, thanks to Madison's subtly powerful performance and Baker's propulsive script. — CM

"The Apprentice"

It shouldn't come as a shock that the most polarizing movie of the year was one about Donald Trump's rise to power as a New York City real estate tycoon.

But take away your political views and opinions on Trump (which, I know, is hard), and this movie from director Ali Abbasi is a fascinating exploration of how those with power and influence move through the world.

And then there are the performances by Sebastian Stan as Trump and Jeremy Strong as Trump's fixer and mentor Roy Cohn, both of which should be recognized during award season. — JG

"Babygirl"

Nicole Kidman gives one of the best and boldest performances of her decadeslong career in "Babygirl." The erotic thriller, written and directed by "Bodies Bodies Bodies" filmmaker Halina Reijn, puts the female gaze on a distinctly male, often-problematic genre, tackling female sexuality, gender, and power dynamics as Kidman's Romy Mathis, a high-powered CEO, pursues a secret affair with her intern (Harris Dickinson). — CM

"Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F"

I wasn't expecting a "Beverly Hills Cop" sequel made on Netflix to give me some of the biggest laugh-out-loud moments this year, but that's exactly what happened.

Director Mark Molloy certainly understood the assignment: lean in to what made the first two movies so beloved (let's not talk about the third one).

Focusing on Eddie Murphy's jokes, big action sequences, and that memorable soundtrack, the fourth movie in the franchise became one of the surprise delights at the movies this year. — JG

"The Brutalist"

One of the boldest epics made in some time, this three-and-a-half-hour drama shot on VistaVision is an exquisite exploration of one immigrant's drive for the American Dream in post-World War II America.

Directed and co-written by Brady Corbet ("Vox Lux"), "The Brutalist" follows fictional character László Tóth (Adrien Brody), a Hungarian-born Jew who survives the Holocaust and emigrates to the US in the late 1940s. Over three decades, Tóth, a talented architect, struggles to make a living and get his wife (Felicity Jones) to the States. Then a wealthy man (Guy Pearce) changes his life.

With masterful production design, photography, score, and performances, this is a movie that will stay with you long after you've seen it. — JG

“Challengers”

Zendaya dazzles in Luca Guadagnino's sporty, steamy drama.

As a former tennis great thrust into a love triangle with two other players, her now-husband Art (Mike Faist) and her ex-boyfriend Patrick (Josh O'Connor), Zendaya delivers one of the most layered performances of her career as she navigates love, lust, and mind games. — JG

“Civil War”

Alex Garland's latest showcases a United States that has been ravaged by civil unrest.

Kirsten Dunst is magnificent as a hardened war journalist in an existential crisis who travels from New York City to Washington, D.C. to cover the story. The war scenes are brutal and devastating, but that's the point. — JG

"Conclave"

Ralph Fiennes leads a drama filled with Shakespearian-level mystery, backstabbing, and intrigue as the Cardinal-Dean in charge of the papal conclave. In the process, he finds himself investigating scandals and secrets as the choices narrow for who will become the next pope.

Stanley Tucci, John Lithgow, and Isabella Rossellini are also outstanding in supporting roles. — JG

"Deadpool & Wolverine"

After a bevy of delays that included Fox being bought by Disney, COVID, and the strikes by the writers and actors in Hollywood, we finally got the third "Deadpool" movie. And it was worth the wait.

From the brawls with Wolverine (Hugh Jackman), the endless Disney IP jokes, and a fight with countless Deadpools, the movie is the rare payoff for fans of superhero movies in the post-"Endgame" era of the MCU. — JG

“Dune: Part Two”

Denis Villeneuve's continuation of his adaptation of Frank Herbert's beloved sci-fi novel takes us back to Arrakis, where Paul (Timothée Chalamet) goes from the hunted to the hunter as he teams with the Fremen to fight his enemies and becomes a Messiah in the process.

Like the first movie, the visuals are stunning, but the sequel also features more Zendaya as Paul's love interest, heightening the stakes by the end. — JG

"The Fall Guy"

Though "The Fall Guy" underperformed at the box office, David Leitch's love letter to stunt performers is one of the most enjoyable movie-watching experiences of the year.

A big reason for that is the performances from Ryan Gosling and Emily Blunt, whose chemistry as they navigate an on-and-off relationship while coping with movie-making madness is off the charts. — JG

"Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga"

George Miller's latest trek into the Wasteland may not be as jaw-dropping as his magnum opus "Mad Max: Fury Road," but the auteur of action still dazzles with breathtaking shots of desolate sandy vistas and ultra-violent car chases.

The major highlight is Anya Taylor-Joy as Imperator Furiosa (originally played by Charlize Theron in "Fury Road"). With very little dialogue, Taylor-Joy must use facial expressions and a multitude of stunts to convey her character's origin story and complex emotional arc. It's well worth the ride. — JG

"Gladiator II"

Twenty-four years after the Oscar-winning original, Ridley Scott returns to the Coliseum with a new star (Paul Mescal) and bigger fights. The result is an enjoyable mix of blockbuster thrills and nostalgic callbacks to the first movie.

But what sets "Gladiator II" apart is Denzel Washington, whose devilish, scenery-chewing performance as a gladiator owner with plans of getting his hooks into the Roman Senate elevates the movie whenever he's on the screen. — JG

“The Greatest Night in Pop”

The song "We Are The World" brought together the greatest musicians in pop and rock, but the story of how it came together makes the song even more remarkable.

This Netflix documentary from Bao Nguyen features never-before-seen footage and candid interviews recounting a single evening in Los Angeles that would become a defining moment for pop culture in the 1980s.

The documentary is replete with fascinating details about how the song and its ensuing celebrity spectacle came to be. From seeing how Michael Jackson created the hook to watching musicians like Cyndi Lauper and Huey Lewis give it their all recording long into the night, "The Greatest Night in Pop" is a must-see for anyone who lived through or loved the '80s music scene. — JG

"Hard Truths"

On a surface level, Pansy Deacon, the lead character of "Hard Truths," isn't someone you'd root for. She's a deeply depressed, angry middle-aged British woman who takes her fury out on anyone and everyone around her, from fellow shoppers at the supermarket to her own browbeaten husband and adult son.

The film starts out almost comically, as Pansy finds every imaginable reason to rant and rave at everything from babies with pockets (what do babies need pockets for anyway?) to the salesperson attempting to help her buy a couch. Marianne Jean-Baptiste infuses Pansy with so much heart and deep-seated pain that you can't help but feel for her, even as you're horrified by her behavior.

Writer-director Mike Leigh's unique filmmaking process (he and his cast start off without a script and collaboratively develop the characters) results in one of the most stunning performances of the year. — CM

"Incoming"

Hollywood is still trying to perfect this generation's high school movie. "Incoming" gets pretty close.

Following a group of friends who are the only freshmen invited to a party thrown by a senior, this raunchy comedy uses staples from the high school genre and mixes them with today's culture to concoct a hilarious movie. — JG

"Inside Out 2"

After a lot of confusion and frustration within the walls of Pixar over its COVID-era release strategy, the beloved animation house is having a much-deserved big-screen resurgence thanks to "Inside Out 2."

In the sequel to the Oscar-winning 2015 original, we catch up with Riley's key emotions like Joy (Amy Poehler) and Sadness (Phyllis Smith) right when Riley hits puberty. And just like that, new emotions like Anxiety (Maya Hawke) and Embarrassment (Paul Walter Hauser) show up wanting to be in control of Riley's feelings.

The movie is a funny and emotionally charged journey that highlights those impressionable years when we can no longer lean on our parents to make the right choices; it's now on us. — JG

"Longlegs"

Beyond having the most brilliant marketing campaign of the year, "Longlegs" is also genuinely freaky.

Osgood Perkins channels "Silence of the Lambs," mixed with devil worship and possessed dolls for good measure, for a crazy genre mashup: a police procedural horror movie. Maika Monroe gives an understated performance as traumatized FBI agent Lee Harker, who's investigating a series of murder-suicides that all point back to one mysterious figure: Longlegs.

The eventual reveal of what's going on — and the physical reveal of Nicolas Cage's Longlegs, a noteworthy entry in the actor's list of batshit roles — is disturbing and memorable. — CM

"The Last Showgirl"

Pamela Anderson gives a career best performance as an aging Las Vegas showgirl who must come to terms with losing her job when her revue abruptly closes.

Anderson holds nothing back as she plays a character who still is intoxicated by the glitz and glamour of the strip of yesteryear but comes to the harsh realization that show business has nothing left for a woman her age.

Ironically, after decades in the limelight, this is the role that is finally getting Anderson the recognition for her acting that she deserves. — JG

"Moana 2"

Originally planned as a TV series, Disney made the right move by turning this instead into a feature-length sequel to the beloved 2016 original.

This time, Moana (Auli'i Cravalho) must defeat an evil God who controls an island so that all islands across the sea can be reconnected.

The higher stakes, new characters, and catchy songs make the movie a worthwhile continuation of a story audiences couldn't wait to return to. — JG

"Nickel Boys"

Some viewers criticized RaMell Ross's bold decision to shoot "Nickel Boys," an adaptation of Colson Whitehead's 2019 novel, in a first-person point-of-view, where we see through the eyes of the character speaking. To that, I politely say: You're wrong, sorry.

The immersive filming style works perfectly to put the audience right in the mix as Elwood and Turner, two Black boys sent to a reform school called the Nickel Academy (based on an actual school in Florida), struggle to survive amid the racist institution's many often deadly abuses.

Ethan Herisse and Brandon Wilson give a pair of breakout performances as Elwood and Turner, and Aunjanue Ellis-Taylor is devastating as Hattie, Elwood's devoted grandmother. It's a tough watch, but a worthy one. — CM

"Nosferatu"

Looking back on the work of Robert Eggers, his obsession with telling stories set long ago has led up to this: an adaptation of the iconic gothic vampire tale.

With exquisite production design, makeup, and effects to transform Bill Skarsgård into the creature of the night, and a tour-de-force performance by Lily-Rose Depp as a woman overcome by a spell that fills her with desire and fear, this is Eggers' masterwork. — JG

"Queer"

Yep, both of Luca Guadagnino's 2024 releases made this list. "Queer" is a very different film from "Challengers" in many ways, but both cement Guadagnino as a filmmaker with an innate understanding of desire and a master at evoking it onscreen.

Based on William S. Burroughs' 1985 novella, the movie follows William Lee, a gay American expat living in 1950s Mexico City, who becomes obsessively infatuated with the much younger Eugene Allerton. Daniel Craig's no-holds-barred performance as Lee, a stand-in for Burroughs himself, establishes him as one of the most talented and versatile working actors today. It's also gorgeously shot, courtesy of Guadagnino's go-to cinematographer Sayombhu Mukdeeprom. — CM

"Rebel Ridge"

There's always one Netflix movie that comes out of the blue every year and grabs attention. This year, it was "Rebel Ridge."

Written and directed by Jeremy Saulnier ("Blue Ruin"), this impressive action movie gives a jolt to the genre with its gritty take. It's also a showcase for Aaron Pierre, who is on his way to big-screen stardom (he also voiced the title character in Disney's end-of-year release, "Mufasa.") — JG

"Strange Darling"

JT Mollner's thriller "Strange Darling" flew under the radar this year, but boy, is it a trip.

The story is told in a destabilizing nonlinear format; it's a clever narrative trick to make you think the movie is something it's not. Willa Fitzgerald and Kyle Gallner are knockouts as the two leads, keeping viewers transfixed and with our hearts in our throats. It's also beautifully shot by Giovanni Ribisi (yes, the actor) in his feature debut as a cinematographer. — CM

"The Substance"

"The Substance" is not for the faint of heart. French filmmaker Coralie Fargeat established herself as a genius of phantasmagoria with her debut feature, 2017's "Revenge," but she takes things up several notches in her follow-up.

The satirical feminist body-horror movie is completely insane, in the best way. It's a disgusting, disturbing, and extremely real fable of female self-hatred that goes off the rails (complimentary) like few movies I've seen before.

Demi Moore grounds it all as Elisabeth Sparkle, a washed-up middle-aged celebrity who's driven to try the mysterious drug dubbed The Substance after being fired from her aerobics show on her 50th birthday. Margaret Qualley is positively demonic as Elisabeth's younger and more perfect self Sue, the product of that black market serum fated to be Elisabeth's downfall. — CM

"Twisters"

This summer, we learned that if you mix Glen Powell and tornadoes, you've got yourself a hit.

This sequel to the 1996 hit "Twister" features more GGI-fueled storms and chemistry so hot between Powell and Daisy Edgar-Jones that audiences were bummed they didn't kiss at the end — everything you need from a hit summer blockbuster. — JG

"Wicked"

I was prepared to be a hater heading into "Wicked." After all, how could someone successfully adapt one of the most successful Broadway musicals of all time? After being blown away by Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande's performances, I'll gladly admit I was wrong.

As the movie's seemingly endless press tour has demonstrated, Erivo and Grande have incredible chemistry as Elphaba and Glinda, two witches who were once best friends before their paths diverged. Erivo is devastating as the lost, deeply lonely but resolute Elphaba, while Grande imbues so many layers into her performance as Glinda. The result is a thoroughly enjoyable movie experience with a showstopping finale, even if it's not the most technically impressive film on this list. — CM

"The Wild Robot"

Based on Peter Brown's popular books, "The Wild Robot" weaves one of the most emotional yarns of the year. The movie tells the story of Roz (Lupita Nyong'o), a robot who washes up on a deserted island and learns the ways of the wildlife that inhabits it, leading to her becoming the guardian of an orphaned gosling.

Beautiful to look at, with animation that has a watercolor quality, it's the uplifting story that elevates this movie from an impressive fantasy tale to a work that will be cherished by audiences for years to come. — JG

Jason's top five of 2024

1. "The Wild Robot"
2. "The Apprentice"
3. "The Brutalist"
4. "The Substance"
5. "Conclave"

Caralynn's top 5 of 2024

1. "The Substance"
2. "Hard Truths"
3. "Queer"
4. "Anora"
5. "Nickel Boys"

• Google on Friday proposed possible remedies to resolve an antitrust case over its search business.
• Last month, the DOJ suggested that the judge force Google to sell its Chrome browser.
• Judge Amit Mehta is expected to rule on the final remedies by August 2025.

Google on Friday proposed limitations to its search partnerships as a potential remedy to resolve antitrust violations in its search business.

The proposal would allow Google to continue partnering with third-party companies like Apple in revenue-sharing deals that make Google the default search engine on their devices, unlike the Justice Department's proposal. However, Google's proposal would make the deals non-exclusive, the company said in its filing.

"We don't propose these changes lightly," Google said in a blog post about the proposal. "They would come at a cost to our partners by regulating how they must go about picking the best search engine for their customers. And they would impose burdensome restrictions and oversight over contracts that have reduced prices for devices and supported innovation in rival browsers, both of which have been good for consumers."

Last month, the Justice Department and a group of states asked Judge Amit Mehta to force Google to sell its Chrome browser to resolve the case. They also asked that Google be stopped from entering default search agreements with Apple and other companies and that Google should open its search engine results to competitors.

Industry experts previously told Business Insider that selling Chrome off would open up the browser market and would likely be cheered on by search rivals and advertisers, though it remains unclear how a possible Chrome spinoff might work.

Both sides will present arguments for their proposals at a hearing scheduled for April. The judge is expected to rule on the final remedies by August.

Kent Walker, Google's president of global affairs, previously said the company intends to appeal the judge's ruling, potentially delaying a final decision by several years.

Representatives for the Justice Department's antitrust division did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.

Business Insider's creative team covered an array of projects this year. We brought our stories to life by incorporating animations, crafting bespoke multimedia experiences for our biggest stories, producing and commissioning hundreds of illustrations, and working with photographers around the globe.

Our visuals captured a wide range of topics, from looking into illegal lockouts in major US cities to Ozempic Scams.

We hired nearly 250 talented freelancers who helped bring our most compelling stories to life, producing over 1,500 pieces of custom art that enhanced our storytelling.

Here are some of our favorite visual creations from 2024.

For God, for country, for rain

Photos by Jett Lara

Why we don't exercise

Illustration by Timo Lenzen

Locked out

Illustration by Andrei Cojocaru, Design and Development by Rebecca Zisser, Isabel Fernandez-Pujol, Randy Yeip, and Annie Fu, Photos by Bridget Bennett, Callaghan O'Hare, Alyssa Pointer, Abel Uribe

The risky allure of WiFi Money

Illustrations by Brandon Celi

Lunar New Year traditions through the lens of three photographers

Photos by Caroline Xia, Ramona Jingru Wang, and Sam Lee

The plight of big sisters

Illustration by Gracia Lam

Albums are too damn long

Illustration by Tyler Le

Want to make money as a pop star? Dream on.

Illustrations by Chris Burnett

The American dream is shrinking

Illustration by Javier Jaén

America is facing a 'fringe friend' crisis

Illustration by Seba Cestaro

'Civilizations rise and fall'

Illustration by Hokyoung Kim

Gen Z's new status symbol

Illustration by Pablo Declan

Joseph Stiglitz on why America's appetite for Trump endures

Photos by Dina Litovsky

The Big Dumb Economic Lie of 2024

Illustration by Alyssa Powell

Scared your partner is cheating? Strangers on the internet are here to help — for a fee

Illustration by Natalie Ammari

Iran will pay for gender-transition surgery, but it comes at a cost — your dignity

Illustration by Ibrahim Rayintakath

New York City's new Gilded Age

Illustration by Carl Godfrey

The pot farm massacre

Photos by Mike Simmons

From ALICEs to DINKs

Illustrations by Jimmy Simpson

The best albums of 2024

Illustration by Natalie Ammari

A founding father of Utah's VC industry is stepping back as accusations of sexual harassment surface

Illustration by Deena So'Oteh

The death of the nuclear family

Illustration by Mark Harris

The online minefield of Ozempic knock-offs

Illustration by Jenny Chang-Rodriguez

To the manor shorn

Photos by Astrid Landon

Through the roof

Illustration by Alex Castro

The mismeasure of America

Illustration by Chris Gash

The rise of the job-search bots

Illustrations by Hugo Herrera

The world's meanest app

Illustration by Alvaro Dominguez

It's gearing up to be a hot travel debt summer for Gen Z and millennials

Illustration by Rebecca Zisser

Hot girls love book clubs

Illustration by Natalia Agatte

What an extra $500 to $1,000 a month did for 8 families

Design and Development by Kim Nguyen, Rebecca Zisser, Isabel Fernandez-Pujol, Photos by Jovelle Tamayo, Tim Evans, Helynn Ospina, Andre Chung, Brittany Greeson, Libby March

'No CCP in USA!'

Illustrations by Matt Harrison Clough

Drake Bell knows life is not a Disney movie

Photos by Ana Topoleanu

AI Power List 2024

Illustration by Karan Singh

Soup to nuts

Illustrations by Tyler Le

The professors turned porn stars

Photos by Simone Lueck

Inside the Billionaire Bunker

Illustration by Saratta Chuengsatiansup

The poisoned chalice of restaurant popularity

Illustration by Valentin Tkach

Gen Z's fading dream

Illustration by Abanti Chowdhury

China's massive stimulus misfire

Illustration by Alyssa Powell

Rob McElhenney is betting on himself

Photos by Sheryl Nields

The hidden costs of traveling while gay

Illustration by Derek Abella

The cursed inheritance

Illustrations by Nate Sweitzer

Steam loops vs. doom loops

Illustration by Sam Green

This Ramadan, queer and transgender Muslims made their own community

Photos by Ramie Ahmed

The fitness fad graveyard

Illustration by Jenny Chang-Rodriguez

Inside Microsoft's struggles with Copilot

Illustration by Chelsea Jia Feng

In celebration of Black History Month

Illustration by Loveis Wise

Why so many Americans hate their jobs

Illustration by Ricardo Tomás

The new rule of homebuying

Illustration by Sebastian König

Behind the data center boom

Illustration by Arif Qazi

MDMA therapy could be legal by summer. Why are so many advocates sounding the alarm?

Illustration by Richard A. Chance

Lunden and Olivia Stallings are TikTok's lesbian power couple. Straight people love them; queer people aren't so sure.

Photos by Kendrick Brinson

Young Chinese are looking for dupes and cheaper substitutes for everything from Hermès to travel

Illustration by Chelsea Jia Feng

The plight of the girlboss

Illustrations by Kiersten Essenpreis

America's absurd war on 'organized retail crime'

Illustration by Tara Anand

The war within Gen Z

Illustration by Tommy Parker

Priced out of America

Illustration by Juanjo Gasull

S'more! S'more!

Illustrations by Liam Eisenberg

My brain on Ozempic

Photos by David Vades Joseph

Elon Musk is fighting wars on a lot of fronts right now

Illustration by Rebecca Zisser

A trainer-heiress power couple created the fitness juggernaut Pvolve. Then came a divorce, an arrest, and Jennifer Aniston.

Illustration by Christian Northeast

The United States of Automobiles

Illustrations by Pete Ryan, Design & Development by Kim Nguyen and Randy Yeip

'Trump is going to win'

Photos by Jordan Vonderhaar

For Gen Alpha, learning to read is becoming a privilege

Illustration by Keith Negley, Photos by Momo Takahashi and Alex Welsh

My breakup with ambition

Illustration by Sophi Gullbrants

The gutting of the Eighth Amendment

Illustration by Matt Rota, Design & Development by Randy Yeip, Kim Nguyen, Dan DeLorenzo, Rebecca Zisser, and Isabel Fernandez-Pujol

• Gwyneth Paltrow's lifestyle brand Goop has undergone two rounds of layoffs in recent months.
• The company has said it's pivoting to focus on beauty, fashion, and food.
• The changes highlight Goop's challenges to build a sustainable business beyond its famous founder.

Gwyneth Paltrow took a measured tone earlier this year when she discussed Goop, her newsletter turned e-commerce company, onstage at a Forbes event. She didn't brag about the nine figures the brand had raised or its latest product release. Instead, she said she was proud Goop was still in business.

"Some years we're down, then we're back up," she said. "I'm proud that we're still alive and kicking."

That might seem surprising for a company that was valued at $433 million in 2020 and was a trailblazer for what a celebrity brand could be. But it's reflective of a company that — despite its name recognition and pop-culture footprint — has undergone several painful pivots in recent years.

In September, Goop laid off nearly 20% of its staff, including its chief technology officer and VP of content. A few weeks later, it laid off about 6% of the remaining employees.

Goop's recent cuts come as the company shifts focus to its beauty, fashion, and food businesses. It's the latest in a series of strategy changes over the last several years.

Changes in focus are normal for a startup. Still, after 16 years of existence, the company isn't profitable and continues to struggle to build a firm foundation apart from Paltrow.

The company's once-buzzy supplement regimens generated $100,000 in sales on the day they launched in 2017. Now, only one of the four initial regimens is still offered online, and for a discount. A Goop spokesperson told Business Insider that any new supplements it launched would be part of its beauty business.

Julia Hunter, a Goop board member and the former CEO of Jenni Kayne, addressed some of the company's struggles in an interview with Puck, published after BI sent Goop a series of questions for this story.

"The company is doing very well from a revenue perspective, but
operating expenses have continued to grow," Hunter said. "I know that it's unpopular to let people go, but they hired a lot of people that they probably shouldn't have."

On the content side, Goop has recently cut many editorial positions, including the VP of content, head beauty editor, and several other editors. A review of Goop's website shows few new articles, and its book imprint hasn't published a new release in over a year. The magazine ran two issues before folding, and while there were reports that Goop's Netflix series, "The Goop Lab," was renewed, it hasn't materialized.

Paltrow's importance to the brand is evident in product launches, two former Goop employees told BI. They spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation; their identities are known to BI.

When she's part of a launch — what is called in Goop parlance an "A launch" — the performance of the advertising on social media "quadruples," one of the former employees said. Performance often drops off once she's no longer involved, this person added.

Last month, a video featuring Paltrow that promoted Goop's newest release, a retinol serum, drew 1,100 likes on Instagram. The next day, a second post about the serum — which didn't include Paltrow — got fewer than 275 likes.

"Brands need to find viable business models, rather than simply a celebrity face," Simeon Siegel, an analyst at BMO Capital, said of A-list entrepreneurs.

The celebrity brands that have grown to be the largest — like Kim Kardashian's Skims, Rihanna's Fenty, and Selena Gomez's Rare Beauty — have moved beyond their founder's image. Skims, which is valued at $4 billion, has made using models from popular culture a core part of its marketing strategy, for instance.

From newsletter to e-commerce shop: over a decade of pivoting

Goop's founding story has become lore to a certain type of aspirant. In 2008, Paltrow was sitting in the kitchen of the London house she shared with her then-husband, Chris Martin, when she decided to pen a newsletter for "family, friends, and friends of friends." The issue featured a recipe for banana muffins and photos shot on Paltrow's Blackberry.

"It was one of the first of its kind to leverage a curated lifestyle of a celebrity," Stacy Jones, the CEO of branding agency Hollywood Branded, told BI. "It is aligned to her own personal brand in a very unique way that hadn't been done to that extent before."

Before long, Paltrow was earning small checks from advertisers and began dreaming of a media empire.

Paltrow hired media veterans from Meredith and Condé Nast to run the publication. There was a lifestyle website with travel guides and interviews on alternative medicine. In 2015, Paltrow launched a publishing imprint, Goop Press, and in 2017, a magazine in partnership with Condé Nast. Conferences promised to be the next big thing for the brand when the In Goop Health Summit series kicked off in 2017, offering (mainly) women the promise of looking and feeling like Paltrow for the four-figure ticket price. In 2020, as streaming entered its golden age, she scored a deal with Netflix.

But Goop suffered in recent years amid a broader digital media downturn.

"Advertising business as a big part of revenue started to decline, and that was probably the biggest shift to revenue of the last several years," Hunter told Puck, adding that going forward, editorial would be "integrated with social media."

Paltrow still posts regular episodes of the Goop podcast, and after a few years off due to the pandemic, the In Goop Health Summit returned last year.

That said, Goop's media projects appear to have been largely shut down, as many of the staffers behind them were affected by the recent cuts.

As Goop's media initiatives fell short, its e-commerce ambitions — or what the company dubbed "contextual commerce" — took center stage.

The core of its e-commerce business has ebbed and flowed over the years. First, it pushed skincare, then fashion, then wellness.

Now, it's back to beauty and fashion.

"It's a lot of testing" of different verticals, the second former employee said.

In the latest restructuring, the hope of a revitalization

In May, Goop brought in outside consultants, led by Hunter, to help streamline the organization and reduce payroll.

Then, in September, Goop announced its latest pivot, saying it would double down on fashion, beauty, and food. These aren't new initiatives for Goop, but the company has touted their recent growth.

G. Label, the company's in-house clothing line, launched in 2016. The company told BI that the brand's sales are up 45% this year compared to the same period last year, but declined to share its revenue numbers.

The two former employees said they felt G. Label had historically underperformed partly because it was initially designed to fit Paltrow, who, at a slender 5-foot-nine-inches tall, has a much different figure than the average American woman.

"We were just putting together whatever Gwyneth felt like wearing," the first former employee said. They added that the company revised the line in the last year using a new, standard-fit model, which they said had helped its sales.

The Goop spokesperson said a new designer had been hired for G. Label in the last year, who revamped the line.

Goop's first foray into beauty was also in 2016.

A few of the products have repeat customers — the neck peptide serum is a top seller — but there isn't a breakthrough hero product.

Some recent efforts to expand the beauty offerings haven't taken off. Last year, the company launched Good Clean Goop, a moderately priced line, in Target and Amazon. Since then, the company has discounted a number of the brand's products, including the Daily Juice Cleanser and Aging Serum. Puck reported in June that Good Clean Goop was in the bottom 15% of beauty brands at Target. The brand has not posted on social media in more than a month. The two former employees said Goop's contract with Target ends at the beginning of next year.

Then there's Goop Kitchen, the "food" piece, which is not part of the core company. The Goop spokesperson said Goop Kitchen is set up as a joint venture and called it a "separate commercial entity." They declined to share what ownership stake Goop has, if any.

Goop has publicly touted growth statistics — like a 25% sales increase for Goop Beauty and a 45% increase for G. Label. The former employees said these figures were driven in part by an influx of paid ad spend.

The Goop spokesperson declined to comment on whether the company is profitable. Hunter told Puck it wasn't.

Whether Goop's latest efforts to boost revenue and cut back on staff are enough to turn the company around remains to be seen. Paltrow, for her part, has hinted that she wants Goop to thrive without her.

"I don't think I can have this job forever," she told The New York Times last year. "I think it would be nice to return my investors' money, and I really want to do that. That's important to me."

Many musicians struggled during the pandemic. Lil Wayne wasn't one of them. He sold master recordings from his record label's artists for more than $100 million. He was pardoned for felony gun possession in a last-minute action by then-President Donald Trump. He purchased a $15.4 million mansion in the mountains of Los Angeles.

And, as a Business Insider investigation found, he received an $8.9 million grant from a little-known pandemic-relief program that he used to cover more than two years' worth of spending on luxury hotel stays, designer clothes, and travel to and from nightclub appearances around the country.

The rapper, whose real name is Dwayne Carter Jr., spent more than $1.3 million from the grant on private-jet flights and over $460,000 on clothes and accessories, many of them from high-end brands like Gucci and Balenciaga. He billed taxpayers more than $175,000 for expenses related to a music festival promoting his marijuana brand, GKUA, including clothing for artists associated with his record label.

He also used grant money to cover nearly $15,000 worth of flights and luxury hotel rooms for women whose connection to Lil Wayne's touring operation was unclear, including a waitress at a Hooters-type restaurant and a porn actress.

On New Year's Eve 2021, he was scheduled to perform at a concert in Coachella, California.

But shortly before his set was scheduled to start, a concert employee announced that the rapper would be unable to perform "because of the wind and the flights." The crowd booed. (Wind gusts of 20 to 30 mph were reported in Southern California that night, but data from Flightradar24 indicates four other private jets flew the exact route Lil Wayne was scheduled to fly.)

Instead, posts on Instagram suggest he partied that night at a club on Sunset Boulevard with the rapper 2 Chainz.

For expenses related to the concert he never performed, Lil Wayne billed taxpayers nearly $88,000.

Lil Wayne's publicists didn't respond to numerous requests for comment on detailed questions. Reached by text, Lil Wayne made a sexually explicit overture to a reporter and did not respond to questions.

'An abuse of federal resources'

The money came from a program called the Shuttered Venue Operators Grant. Signed into law by Trump in 2020 and championed by lawmakers including Sen. Chuck Schumer, it was established as a lifeline for struggling independent venues and arts groups during the pandemic.

But pop stars used the program as a piggy bank to keep the party going, reporting by Business Insider shows.

The stars' spending took place against a backdrop of massive pandemic-relief fraud. The Paycheck Protection Program and Economic Injury Disaster Loans gave out as much as $200 billion in suspected false claims, losses that combined with false unemployment-benefit claims amount to what the FBI has called the largest fraud in history. Compared with those better-known programs, the Shuttered Venue Operators Grant had relatively strict eligibility requirements.

Still, accounting firms and money managers soon realized their stadium-filling musician clients might be eligible for grant money via their loan-out companies — corporate entities used to handle the business of touring. Grants awarded to clients of one high-powered entertainment-business-management firm, NKSFB, totaled at least $207 million, BI previously reported. NKSFB itself collected more than $7 million by helping its clients obtain the grants.

NKSFB's managing partner, Mickey Segal, didn't respond to requests for comment. The firm's lawyer Bryan Freedman said NKSFB doesn't comment on its clients' finances.

Grantees received up to $10 million that they could spend on certain "ordinary and necessary" expenses for their entertainment businesses. They had to make a good-faith statement to the Small Business Administration, which oversaw the program, that the grant was necessary to support the loan-out company's "ongoing operations" and show that the company's revenue had fallen by at least 25% between one quarter of 2019 and the same quarter of 2020.

In a statement, the SBA said it followed the law. But the law directed the SBA to examine revenue, not assets. Musicians with huge bank accounts and multiple mansions were still eligible for the awards as long as their loan-out company's revenue had declined.

Thousands of pages of accounting documents reviewed by Business Insider reveal, for the first time, how some wealthy musicians — including Chris Brown, the DJ Marshmello, and members of Alice in Chains — spent grants they received through the program.

The documents include detailed records explaining how celebrity musicians spent their grants, as well as correspondence between their accountants and the SBA. Business Insider has verified the authenticity of the documents.

They reveal how artists directed millions in taxpayer funds not toward touring crew members, but instead toward their own bank accounts, luxury purchases, and entertainment expenses — often while sitting on substantial wealth from other business ventures.

One top government-accountability expert said some of the spending Business Insider identified was questionable — but stopped short of saying it was fraudulent.

"At a minimum, it smells," said David Walker, a former comptroller general of the United States. "Whether it's legal or not is up to a lawyer or ultimately to a court. But it sure smells."

The SBA said it "implemented industry-leading fraud controls."

Sen. Gary Peters, the chair of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, said celebrity musicians' use of Shuttered Venue grants was "an abuse of federal resources." Business Insider's findings, he added, demonstrate "the need for continued oversight of pandemic-relief programs."

Pandemic relief was intended to help businesses and workers in need, the senator said — "not super wealthy celebrities."

An $80,000 birthday party

Lil Wayne wasn't the only one to engage in questionable grant spending. Chris Brown spent his grant on a big paycheck — and a big party. Of the $10 million grant Brown's company CBE Touring received, $5.1 million went to Brown personally. He also billed taxpayers nearly $80,000 for his 33rd birthday party.

The blowout, held in a luxe Los Angeles event space, featured a $3,650 LED dance floor and "atmosphere models" — nude women in body paint — who cost $2,100, according to expense reports and a blog post by the party planner. The bill included more than $29,000 for hookahs, bottle service, "nitrogen ice cream," and damages involving burn holes to rented couches.

While the grant was meant to support live entertainment, Brown also charged $24,000 to the grant for the cost of driving his tour bus from the US to Tulum, Mexico, and back in fall 2020 during a monthlong stay for him and his entourage in the resort town, where he did not perform. He spent several days in Tulum filming a video with Jack Harlow for a joint track, but it's not clear if the rest of the trip was for business or pleasure. And more than $179,000 of the grant went toward a celebrity basketball tournament broadcast on YouTube, including a $20,000 payment to the Indianapolis Colts tight end Mo Alie-Cox, who played on Brown's basketball team.

Brown, his attorneys, and managers did not respond to requests for comment. Representatives for Harlow and Alie-Cox also didn't respond to requests for comment.

Others also paid themselves, taking advantage of an SVOG spending category that Business Insider drew attention to last year: "owner compensation."

The SBA's guidance said artists could use grants paid to their loan-out company to pay themselves as long as the check was no bigger than it was in 2019.

Marshmello, whose real name is Christopher Comstock, received a $9.9 million grant. More than a year later, when the SBA asked for proof of where it went, his business manager Steven Macauley, of NKSFB, responded by saying all the money went into Comstock's pocket.

"Because the beneficiary received 2019 Officer Draws/Salary from 365 Touring International, Inc. in excess of the SVOG Grant Award, we therefore, expensed the entire Grant balance to Payroll," Macauley wrote in an April 2023 letter seen by Business Insider.

In other words, because Comstock made more than $9.9 million from touring in 2019, he was able to award himself the entire grant. In doing so, Comstock paid himself more than any other musician who received grant money.

Comstock's publicists and his manager didn't reply to requests for comment, nor did Macauley.

Artists often paid themselves far more than they paid anyone else involved in putting on their live shows.

Steve Aoki's loan-out company, DJ Kid Millionaire Touring, used $2.4 million in grant money on payroll costs, of which $1.9 million was officer pay. Aoki is the company's only officer. Aoki's publicists didn't respond to requests for comment.

Three of the four members of the rock band Shinedown split at least $2.5 million of their $8.3 million grant. On top of those distributions, Shinedown's four members paid themselves more than $100,000 each out of the roughly $1.2 million of the grant that was allocated to payroll.

The band's 15 touring-production workers, meanwhile, received a combined $650,000 of the grant money — less than a single member of the band got. Publicists for the band didn't respond to requests for comment.

Records seen by BI show that a good chunk of the $7.7 million grant to Sremm Touring, the loan-out company for the hip-hop duo Rae Sremmurd, was paid to the rappers Slim Jxmmi and Swae Lee, whose real names are Aaquil Brown and Khalif Brown. The duo's manager, lawyer, and publicists didn't respond to requests for comment.

On March 23, 2022, records show, the Alice in Chains singer and guitarist Jerry Cantrell took in $1.4 million as an "SVOG distribution." The band's drummer, Sean Kinney, received the same amount, and its bassist, Mike Inez, booked half that sum, about $682,000.

In all, $3.4 million of the $4.1 million the grant allotted for payroll went to the three musicians at the top.

Like other grant applicants, AIC Entertainment — the three band members' touring business — had to tell the government only that the money was "necessary." But the month before they took their grant payments, the band members recorded about $48 million in income from selling the copyrights on their catalog. They made hundreds of thousands of dollars more from merchandise sales and other profit distributions in 2022.

The band spent some money to pay its staff. It paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to sound-equipment-rental firms, videographers, and managers. But the precarious nature of working in the live-entertainment business didn't change for some of its employees. Scott Dachroeden, a guitar tech and tour photographer who had worked with the band for years, received a cancer diagnosis in late 2022. The band, which records show did not spend grant money on benefits like health insurance, circulated a GoFundMe page on Twitter.

"He has no health insurance and now cannot work to pay his bills," the page said. The band's lead singer said on Facebook that Alice in Chains helped out behind the scenes, but a person familiar with the situation said that Dachroeden didn't get much, if any, money from the band during the pandemic and that after his diagnosis, the band connected Dachroeden with a charity that helps with medical bills. Dachroeden died soon after his diagnosis.

Alice in Chain's publicists and manager didn't respond to requests for comment.

Supporting 'middle-class people'

The Shuttered Venue Operators Grant program was pitched to Americans as a way to ensure that arts groups would still exist after the pandemic.

In an interview with James Corden on "The Late Late Show," Chuck Schumer cast it as a way to protect "middle-class people" and "young artists" while pandemic restrictions forced closures.

Grant money would "keep these folks going" so that "these live venues will be out there bigger and better than ever" after the restrictions lift, Schumer said. Schumer's press office and chief of staff didn't respond to comment requests.

Ultimately, more than 13,000 arts groups received grants, including some who say they wouldn't still exist otherwise.

"When the shutdowns happened, it was existential. Immediate crisis," said Brandy Hotchner, the founder of Arizona Actors Academy, an acting school in Phoenix. The grant of less than $120,000 the group received, she said, "utterly saved us."

Musicians weren't explicitly categorized as eligible — and initially, the SBA interpreted the law to mean that artists' loan-out companies couldn't qualify for the grant either.

By mid-December 2021, for reasons BI was unable to determine, the agency had reversed that decision, according to an internal memo seen by Business Insider, which cleared the way for federal funding to flow to wealthy artists. The SBA didn't respond to a question about why it reversed itself.

The business-management firm NKSFB also made millions from the program.

Partners at the firm initially believed that their celebrity clients didn't qualify for the grants. At least one partner feared that applying could be perjury, and another, Rob Salzman, thought the whole thing was "bullshit," a court document said.

Later, in an interview with Billboard magazine as part of its list of "Top Business Managers," Salzman said that applying for the grants was an example of the firm's "outside-the-box" thinking.

The change of heart led to a big payday. Court documents show the firm made at least $7.5 million in fees on the grants. Salzman didn't respond to requests for comment.

"NKSFB, one of the most respected business management firms in the world, does not comment on its clients' financial information," said Freedman, the firm's lawyer. "Based on the uninformed questions that BI has asked, it is clear it has little to no understanding on this subject."

Other white-collar professionals also outearned techs and roadies. Lawyers at the celebrity-favorite firms Greenberg Traurig and Grubman Shire Meiselas & Sacks received up to 5% of their clients' grants. Brown's manager took 7% of his grant, and Shinedown's managers received 20% of theirs. A spokesperson for Greenberg Traurig didn't answer questions about the firm's actions. Partners at Grubman Shire didn't respond to emails or phone calls.

Over $2.1 million of Lil Wayne's grant paid off a debt to a former manager, Cortez Bryant. Another $300,000 went to a former accountant, and his manager at the time, Mack Maine, whose real name is Jermaine Preyan, took $1.7 million. All told, roughly $5.3 million went to managers, accountants, and attorneys as fees and commissions — more than 13 times the amount Lil Wayne paid the drummer, sound techs, and other contractors who helped put on his live shows.

Bryant and Preyan didn't respond to requests for comment.

A music-industry insider who learned from Business Insider about NKSFB's wave of grant applications said he was stunned the Small Business Administration approved them.

"It never crossed my mind that we should be trying to get this money for my artists," said the insider, an artist manager who was involved in lobbying lawmakers to pass the legislation and who asked not to be named because of the issue's sensitivity.

"I was in countless conversations," he said. "No one ever discussed artists collecting this money. It never came up."

Hotchner, the acting-school founder, said she was "speechless" upon learning about Business Insider's reporting on how celebrity musicians spent their grants. Though the amount of money sent to pop stars is small relative to the overall amount of money disbursed through the grant program, she said she worried it would taint the public's perception of government support for the arts — support that's still needed.

"I will never forget how hard-fought-for this funding was," she said. "It's such a disappointment."

'Shut up, sit down. Process the file.'

Soon after Congress created the program, lawmakers began pressing the Small Business Administration to get money out the door. By mid-June 2021, more than 200 members of Congress had signed two separate letters demanding the agency disburse the funds expeditiously, saying arts organizations could go out of business without immediate relief.

The SBA said congressional pressure "was not the driving factor" behind changes that sped up the grant process and merely "coincided" with changes it was already making.

The agency hoped to balance a quick release of funds with a desire to protect against large-scale fraud that had plagued other pandemic programs. Its compromise was to relax some anti-fraud controls on the front end of the grant process, a report from the SBA's inspector general said. Instead, it planned to verify whether the grantees were actually eligible and how the money was spent after distributing the grants. In its response to the inspector general's report, the agency said it disagreed with the conclusion that changes to how it evaluated applications amounted to "weakened" fraud controls.

The approach had mixed results. The Government Accountability Office said that it submitted three phony applications to the program and that all three were rejected. But some of the eight current and former SBA workers who spoke to Business Insider said they felt the agency was too permissive and ignored or misinterpreted relevant rules — for example, allowing grantees to spend federal funds on thousands of dollars' worth of alcohol.

"They were just trying to get money out. If it was fraudulent, if it was not eligible — whatever," a person who worked on the grants said. They asked not to be named because they feared retaliation, but their identity is known to Business Insider.

The SBA's inspector general criticized the agency's decision to spot problems after the recipients already spent the money, saying it "does not provide sufficient fraud prevention and comes at a point when funds are potentially unrecoverable." Some SBA employees said that as the program began to wind down, they were pressured to certify recipients' compliance with program rules rather than dig through detailed records of their spending.

The SBA said in September it had recouped $43 million worth of the grants — an amount that hadn't increased since July. It's not clear how the agency recovered that money. While the SBA has a team to recover wrongfully awarded grants, an organizational chart suggests that as of late September it hadn't assigned any staff to it. Documents obtained in a public-records request said $6 billion worth of grants remain under review for compliance with program rules.

The SBA said "some" of the grants Business Insider mentioned in its reporting "remain open due to ongoing third-party audits that the Agency is resolving." The agency spokesperson didn't respond to questions about recoupment and didn't respond to a follow-up question asking which grants remain unresolved.

Four people who worked on the program said they tried to raise concerns about grantees' eligibility and spending to supervisors, to no avail. "I was never so disappointed in my fellow man than in that program," one of the people said. "The graft was unbelievable."

Two of those people said they were frustrated the agency wasn't doing more to investigate possible misspending and recover funds.

"Everybody kept saying shut up, sit down. Process the file," said a current SBA employee who asked not to be named because they're not authorized to speak to the press.

This person said that while some issues stemmed from the dwindling number of SVOG employees drowning in documentation, other problems arose because of the way the program was administered. "It was our fault because we threw this thing together in five seconds," they said.

An SBA spokesperson defended its processes. "By design, the vast majority of processing staff did not have access to the complete results of fraud checks and, therefore, are not positioned to comment on the internal review process or its outcomes," the spokesperson said in an email.

"Where credible evidence suggests funds were misspent or a grantee misrepresented their expenditures to SBA, the agency's robust fraud and waste oversight structure reviewed such allegations," the spokesperson said. "When substantiated, SBA and its law enforcement partners vigorously prosecute suspected wrongdoing. As a matter of policy, the SBA cannot comment on specific investigations or law enforcement action, whether planned or ongoing."

Meanwhile, the government has recovered at least some money from one musician.

As pandemic restrictions faded, Chris Brown returned to performing. In early 2022, he announced a 27-stop nationwide tour and launched a variety of side projects, including a novelty cereal called Breezy's Cosmic Crunch and an NFT collection.

While the Small Business Administration was disbursing money to Brown's touring company, federal and state tax authorities were becoming very interested in his finances.

In early 2021, the IRS notified Brown that he owed $3.2 million in unpaid taxes. In 2022, the IRS determined that Brown owed an additional $2.2 million, while California's Franchise Tax Board found that Brown hadn't paid $1.3 million in state taxes.

He settled these debts in April last year — but not before American taxpayers had unwittingly paid $80,000 for his birthday party.

Have a tip? Know more? Reach Jack Newsham via email ([email protected]) or via Signal (+1-314-971-1627). Do not use a work device.

• The government lost billions of dollars to fraud and improper payments last year.
• Both Musk and Ramaswamy have indicated they'll crack down on fraud through DOGE.
• Some experts told BI they're optimistic about action on fraud, but the DOGE leaders have to be willing to invest in the issue.

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy have an opportunity to take on fraud in government programs once President-elect Donald Trump takes office.

Musk and Ramaswamy are tasked with leading the new Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, which seeks to reduce government waste and slash spending. Musk set a goal of cutting $2 trillion in annual outlays.

One of Musk and Ramaswamy's aims for DOGE could lead to a relatively early win with bipartisan support: eliminating fraud in federal programs like Medicare. In a recent interview, Ramaswamy told CNBC that "the dirty little secret is that many of those entitlement dollars aren't even going to people who they were supposed to be going to in the first place."

"There are hundreds of billions of dollars of savings to extract" through basic fraud prevention measures, he said.

Musk shared that sentiment, posting on X in November: "The sheer magnitude & audacity of government fraud is mind-blowing!"

Data from the Government Accountability Office showed that government agencies have made about $2.7 trillion in improper payments since 2003, and in fiscal year 2023, the GAO estimated agencies made $236 billion in improper payments. Notably, those improper payments include other categories than intentional fraud, like administrative errors, Orice Williams Brown, the GAO's chief operating officer, said in a September testimony to Congress.

"While all fraudulent payments are considered improper, not all improper payments are due to fraud," Brown said.

The top impacted agencies were Medicare and Medicaid, which the GAO said had $51 billion and $50 billion in improper payments, respectively, followed by pandemic programs, including the Paycheck Protection Program.

Experts told Business Insider that there's potential for DOGE to make progress on the issue if they focus on effective solutions like system modernization and improved data analysis, an area where Ramaswamy and Musk could leverage their Silicon Valley tech experience.

Both fraud and improper payments have been difficult for the government to address because of "outdated technology and a limited focus on program integrity," Linda Miller, cofounder of the Program Integrity Alliance — a group that focuses on fraud prevention in the government — told BI.

"You need to use advanced technology and data in order to really move the needle," Miller said. "And the government is not using advanced technology and data to solve this problem."

Jetson Leder-Luis, an assistant professor at Boston University and researcher on government fraud, told BI that DOGE could pursue "a lot of low-hanging fruit ideas" to combat fraud in big industries like healthcare.

"I think DOGE has the opportunity to make big strides on fraud," Leder-Luis said, adding that if they boost enforcement funding and create enhanced data pipelines, "they have a major opportunity to save tens of billions of dollars."

The Trump transition team did not immediately respond to a request for comment from BI.

How government programs make way for fraud

The government has been unable to implement widescale fraud intervention in recent decades because of a lack of resources and staff to investigate fraud, and a failure to modernize data and technology systems, according to Miller and Leder-Luis.

The GAO found that the government's annual financial losses from fraud were between $233 billion and $521 billion, based on data from fiscal years 2018 through 2022.

Miller pointed to the pandemic as the "perfect storm" for fraud, with the Paycheck Protection Program and disaster loan programs as key examples. Miller said that all that aid being available, coupled with limited oversight at the government level during a national emergency, made it easier for fraud to go undetected; some of the programs allowed individuals to self-certify their loan applications, paving the way for misrepresentations.

"The lack of modernization of our digital technology at the state government level was a real hindrance to fraud prevention during the pandemic," Leder-Luis said.

There have been a number of instances where individuals attempt, and sometimes succeed, to game the system and score welfare benefits that they're not entitled to. But, Miller said, the bigger concern is beyond the individual circumstances; it's the "large-scale fraud schemes" that have taken millions of dollars from the government. For example, the FBI opened an investigation into a scheme that Medicare officials said defrauded the program out of $3 billion after some companies billed the program for catheters patients never requested or used.

Lawmakers and the Department of Justice have worked to take action over the past years to address fraud, including with the federal Pandemic Response Accountability Committee that oversaw pandemic-era programs. Still, Miller said that while agencies are focused on getting benefits to the beneficiary, there still isn't enough attention on ensuring benefits are going to the right person.

"That's the kind of thing that I think really angers Americans," Miller said. "You wonder, 'What are your tax dollars going to if they're not stopping that kind of fraud?'"

Where DOGE can play a role

Miller said she expects DOGE to look for "quick wins" soon after Trump takes office. These could include modernizing IT systems and investing more resources into fraud detection. A critical point DOGE will have to contend with is that cracking down on the cost of fraud would require some upfront investments.

"It can be very helpful to have a private sector lens come in and look at this," Miller said, which is why Musk and Ramaswamy's backgrounds could be useful in introducing new technology to government systems. However, she said, the two DOGE leaders have to be willing to invest in new fraud detection systems because, even amid their goals to slash spending, modernizing technology is not going to be free.

The GAO's Brown also outlined recommendations for federal agencies to better prevent fraud, including using external data from third parties to verify information Americans provide on loan and insurance applications.

With Republicans soon holding control of both Congress and the White House, DOGE's recommendations to Trump and lawmakers would likely see an easier path to passage. Addressing fraud has also seen Democratic support; Rep. Jamie Raskin introduced the Government Spending Oversight Committee Act in April, which would give federal inspectors general tools to combat fraud across major funding bills.

To be sure, some lawmakers and experts are skeptical of DOGE's approach. The US spent $6.75 trillion in fiscal year 2024, data from the Treasury Department showed, and it wouldn't be as simple as the DOGE leaders have said to ax that spending, lawyers told BI.

While administrative law requires a lengthy process to rescind regulations in federal agencies, Musk and Ramaswamy previously said they would recommend a list of regulations that Trump could "immediately pause." Some lawyers previously said the process is a lot more complicated, and the DOGE leaders would likely face legal hurdles if they pursued that route.

Musk and Ramaswamy also aren't the first to suggest cuts to government spending. Former President Ronald Reagan's Grace Commission, aimed at eliminating waste and inefficiency in the federal government, eliminated $22 billion in social welfare programs that ended up being offset by his tax cuts and defense spending.

Still, Leder-Luis said, what DOGE determines as "waste" is up for interpretation, whereas fraud is illegal, and there's support across the aisle to take that on.

"If we lose $50 billion a year to fraud in just the healthcare system alone, that's ultimately paid for by us," Leder-Luis said. "There are so many things that people want the government to be able to pay for that we all think are good and valuable, like better roads and schools. And when we say, 'I'm sorry, we can't afford that,' well, we are affording healthcare fraud instead."

• In recent years, remote work and affordable housing drove young Americans to move to rural areas.
• Places like Dawson County, Georgia, are seeing growth among young people seeking space and savings.
• It reverses a decadeslong trend of movement into cities.

Chase Voss, 36, moved this year from Hawaii to rural Georgia to be closer to family.

His new home, Dawson County, is one of the fastest-growing counties in the US for young people, amid a wave of movers into rural areas that's reversing a decadeslong trend toward cities.

Voss, a real-estate agent, said many younger and middle-aged families have moved to Dawsonville from out of state for job reasons. Though there aren't many jobs in Dawsonville itself, which has a population of just over 4,600, some work tourism or nature jobs in the nearby mountains, while others commute the over 50 miles to Atlanta or work remotely.

"Dawsonville is far enough away where they can feel that remoteness but still close enough to the city that they can have access to everything," Voss said.

In recent years, younger professionals have been bucking a longtime trend of their age group: moving to cities. Now, with flexible work arrangements and high housing costs, many are forgoing more densely populated areas in favor of rural America. Those areas bring bigger houses, lower prices, and a different pace of life — and their own new challenges.

Where younger people are moving

A recent analysis of Census data by Hamilton Lombard, a demographer at the University of Virginia, found that 63% of rural counties or counties in small metros experienced increases in their populations of 25- to 44-year-olds between 2020 and 2023, compared to 27% between 2010 and 2013.

Northern Georgia, the Mountain West, and New England were rural regions with particularly strong population growth among young Americans. The 10 counties that saw the biggest influxes of younger adults were largely rural; the most populated of all of those areas is Hays County, Texas, in the suburbs of Austin, which had a population of around 280,500 in 2023. Musselshell County, which is the least populous, had just 5,308 people as of 2023.

That's a big shift from pre-pandemic patterns: From 1980 to 2020, white-collar workers increasingly moved into densely populated areas, per Lombard's analysis. That trend was expected to continue — until the pandemic and the rise of remote work. Since 2020, Lombard found, rural areas and smaller cities have attracted that younger workforce at the highest rate in nearly a century.

Jeannie Steele, a real-estate broker in Townsend, Montana, has seen an influx of young people. Broadwater County, with about 8,000 residents, was the third-fastest-growing county for Americans ages 25 to 44, Lombard's analysis found. Townsend is located about 30 miles from Helena, though Steele said many commute to Bozeman or Three Forks.

Steele said she previously considered her area a retirement hub. However, the construction of a new elementary school starting in 2019 brought many younger families, particularly some working in construction, mining, or medicine. Many are moving from Washington, California, and Minnesota, Steele said.

"We have a lot of people here that come and have this vision of homesteading," Steele said. "They want to grow their own food. They want to have chickens and gardens. Interestingly enough, though, all those things in our environment are difficult."

In Custer County, Colorado — the area that's seen the highest net percent increase of 25 to 44-year-olds — 28-year-old Arrott Smith has seen many more nice cars driving around as younger, well-off remote workers move into town.

"For the most part, that's kind of a weird juxtaposition because it is a very working-class county," Smith said.

Smith, the manager and a roaster at local haunt Peregrine Coffee, said that the area has traditionally skewed older — but saw a big influx of younger workers over the last few years. Smith said that the area's newer residents are buying homes even as costs have gone up.

"To me it's more like the people that are moving here have a romanticized version of what it is to live up here," Smith said.

Going rural can be challenging

Economist Jed Kolko said that, with the proliferation of remote work, Americans moved out of bigger urban areas into nearby suburbs or smaller towns. But headwinds in some occupations might slow down the influx of newcomers.

"If unemployment rises, particularly in the kinds of occupations where remote work is more common, employers might be more able to insist on workers spending more days in the office," Kolko said. "Even if that doesn't cause people to reverse the moves that they made during or after the pandemic, it could still slow down that trend in the future."

Meanwhile, in areas that have seen a rush of new residents like Townsend, Kolko said it's key for housing to keep up with demand. If not, affordability challenges from big cities could spread out.

New challenges confront the residents reshaping these areas. Steele said many people moved to her part of Montana after the TV series "Yellowstone" aired, though she's seen many younger people regret their moves. She said many don't anticipate the challenges of living in a more remote part of the US, such as navigating storms, buying goods in bulk, or dealing with isolation.

Recently, rentals have gone really fast, Steele said, adding that rents, on average, have increased from about $750 in 2019 to well over $1,000 monthly. A more stark comparison is some of the county's single-family homes, many of which were built in the late 1970s and early 1980s; while they sold for about $100,000 in 2017, they range from $390,000 to $400,000 today, Steele said.

Housing affordability pushed Solitaire Miles, a Gen X musician, to move from Chicago to northwestern Indiana in 2013. Miles and her husband lived in the Chicago area for about 13 years. While they were gainfully employed, she said, they weren't earning enough to live comfortably while renting. They couldn't afford a home in Illinois, especially with high property taxes. But in Indiana, they found a home with three-quarters of an acre of land just 50 miles from Chicago for under $200,000.

Miles loves having the space. A quieter pace of living has helped stimulate her creativity and her at-home border collie rescue — they currently have five of their own dogs.

But the area has changed over the past few years; the pandemic also fractured her community.

"After Covid, everything just kind of went downhill. So many people died, a lot of elderly died, or they left and they moved south," Miles said.

She's glad they ended up buying out there, and if and when they choose to sell, they'll make a tidy profit. Even so, though, the move came with its own struggles.

"It was hard. I had the gym that I loved and the spas and my beauty salon and the restaurants — all of our friends," she said. "I mean, I did make friends here, but it took time, and I had to go to places where I knew they would be."

For Voss, the real-estate agent, it took him time to acclimate to the South. As a gay man, he noticed more hostility toward his community, though he said many in Dawsonville have appreciated his advocacy work. He's enjoying rural Georgia for the time being but anticipates splitting his time with Hawaii in a few years.

"Georgia is beautiful, I love it. It's so great for so many people," Voss said. "But for me, because of the mentality of the people here, I just don't see myself staying full-time."

Have you moved to a rural area and regretted it (or loved it)? Contact these reporters at [email protected] and [email protected].

• As a personal stylist, I think the quiet-luxury look is easy to achieve.
• Look for high-quality pieces in classic silhouettes, which can be found on sale or secondhand.
• Accessorize with simple pieces and avoid wearing too many designer logos.

As a personal stylist, I love trends like quiet luxury that encourage people to buy quality pieces that can be worn for years, or even decades.

After all, quiet-luxury style is all about using high-quality, understated pieces to create effortless looks.

Some celebrities have really nailed it. One example that comes to mind is Gwyneth Paltrow and the outfits she wore during her 2023 ski-collision trial.

Her chic, understated looks were covered closely by fashion publications like Vogue and consisted of lush sweaters, fitted blazers, and leather boots in various neutrals. Her classic outfits managed to say, "I'm rich" without screaming it.

Some fictional characters — like many in the final season of HBO's "Succession" — have also exemplified the quiet-luxury look by mixing quality neutrals and timeless silhouettes.

Fortunately, the quiet-luxury trend is really easy to duplicate. Here are five tips to keep in mind if you want to nail this look.

Don't go overboard with logos.

Head-to-toe looks covered in logos from expensive brands can scream, "I'm trying too hard to look rich."

Quiet luxury stresses the quiet. Items that fit this trend tend to look luxurious when they don't have visible branding.

The good news is that avoiding logos can make creating high-end looks for less very easy.

Whenever I'm unsure if a piece feels quietly luxurious or not, I ask, "Would a Nancy Meyers heroine wear this while meeting her architect for an espresso in her recently renovated kitchen?"

Many of the lead characters in the director's movies have mastered understated-yet-chic outfits, so the piece is a winner if my answer is "yes."

Check the tags before buying a garment.

Get into the habit of checking what garments are made of, especially since higher prices doesn't always mean you're getting higher-quality materials.

Clothing made of natural materials tends to last longer and look richer than pieces made of artificial fabrics such as acrylic and polyester.

You'll want to prioritize cotton, linen, cashmere, wool, and silk.

Do your best to invest in quality.

Despite having "luxury" in its name, this trend does not have to break the bank.

To start, I suggest upgrading your basics to the highest quality you can afford. One way to do so on a budget is seeking out sale finds at luxury department stores, such as Saks Fifth Avenue or Nordstrom, or their discount spin-offs, Saks Off Fifth or Nordstrom Rack.

Also consider buying high-end pieces secondhand. I've had good luck finding luxury items at The RealReal, an online marketplace.

I recently purchased a 100% cashmere Giorgio Armani blazer there for the price of a marked-down Banana Republic jacket.

Quiet luxury is all about a relaxed silhouette.

If you're trying to lean into this look, leave your shapewear and skintight pieces at home. Embrace wide-leg pants, pleats, relaxed jeans, button-up blouses, and simple sweaters that are a little bit loose.

When choosing pieces, picture yourself as the kind of low-key chic person who replies to compliments with, "Oh, this thing? I just threw it on. I've had it for years."

Simple accessories subtly up the ante of a look.

One (or two) false moves and quiet luxury can look more boring than quiet. The easiest way to avoid this is with simple accessories.

Some of my favorite ways to elevate an outfit are with understated gold or silver hoops and a simple belt. A pearl or gold stud earring, simple chain necklace, or architectural ear cuff can also add an instant pop of chic to a simple look.

I also suggest investing in classic pieces that can instantly make you look more put together — like a trench coat or leather belt — and wearing them often.

• Susie Moore, a life coach, moved to NYC and landed a tech job by leveraging mutual connections.
• Networking to set yourself up for a future opportunity is especially effective during the holidays.
• She suggests setting intentions, creating ping lists, and attending events to expand your network.

When I was 25, I moved to New York City from Sydney without friends, career prospects, or a college degree. Despite being what some might call unprepared, I knew I would land a job because I excel at connecting with people and taking initiative.

Within two months, I started working for a tech company because I leveraged a mutual connection, an industry peer in Australia whose company had an NYC office. I asked for an introduction to her US team, and she gave me one. A single warm email connection was all it took to get me in the door.

Networking is simply building relationships by being proactive, and it doesn't have to be a cringe-worthy chore. It can be fun, graceful, and extremely rewarding, and the holiday season is the perfect time to do it. There's an undeniable "holiday glow" to people in December.

Now, as a life coach of over 10 years, I encourage my community to expand and nurture their networks no matter their career choices or future goals. If you want to step up your networking game as 2025 fast approaches, here's a checklist to seize the season before the year ends.

1. Set an intention

What do you want your networking efforts to accomplish? Are you seeking a new position in the new year? Do you want to attract new clients to your business? Do you want to kick off a side hustle? Or do you simply want to strengthen your network for the future?

A measurable goal is ideal, but networking is valuable even without a specific goal. A mentor of mine once told me she has a spreadsheet of 50 people she emails casually every quarter for no reason but to say hello and keep the relationship alive. So few people do this!

We let so many relationships go to waste because we make too little effort, so those who keep in touch win because we stand out and are top of mind when opportunities roll around — and they do. My connections have brought me investment opportunities, speaking engagements, and book deals.

2. Get into the holiday spirit

The season of goodwill is a great time to reach out and express gratitude. Most people are reflective and slow down a bit this time of year, so it's the ideal time to send a short gratitude note, text, or DM like this:

"Thanks for your help with X project this year — it meant a lot. Wishing you the best holiday break and start to 2025!"

"I'm lucky to have worked with you this year, and I hope the new job at X is going great! Hi to (spouse name)."

"I just found the coolest candle shop/whisky tasting/tennis memorabilia site (insert picture/link of the thing the person likes). Happy holidays to you!"

Sincere, short, sweet, personal messages go a long way in letting people know how they've encouraged, inspired, or helped you — or even that you're just thinking of them.

3. Create a custom ping list

Success can come down to volume and some experimentation. It's easier to start with people you know, but you can also include some people you'd like to know — for example, I might include 5-10 people I admire with mutual connections.

When I moved to NYC, I looked up connections of my friends on LinkedIn and used that as a way to introduce myself:

"Hi name! You and I are both friends with the lovely (friend's name).

I've just moved to NYC and this city is just beautiful in December. Perhaps we could have a latte if you have 20 minutes free next week? It would be great to share some industry information and connect. I'll gladly come to (part of the city where that person lives/works).

Happy holidays!"

Aim to reach at least 30 people before year-end based on your intention. These can be former coworkers, members of your running or book club, friends of friends, or anyone you'd like to know better.

Not everyone will respond to you, but the right people will. A few Decembers ago, I met up with a fellow entrepreneur who had recently moved to Florida. We've enjoyed more than one business collaboration since, and she's also become a client of mine.

4. Get out there

December is a social season. I've made many connections at apartment lobby parties, holiday celebrations, and New Year's Eve gatherings.

If you're more introverted, be selective about what you attend — just keep returning to your intention (a tech mixer might be worthwhile, for example, but drinks at your next-door neighbor's place may not). Generally, it's worth showing up if you feel on the fence about an invitation. A little face-time goes a long way in nurturing connections.

People are also less busy around the holidays than you think, particularly during the last two weeks of December when schedules slow down. This can be a great time to suggest meeting for coffee, a cocktail, or even a walk. This can also mean a lot to folks in an age of increasing isolation.

5. Underthink it — do it now

The reach-out part is fast. Attacking your ping list doesn't require blocking out hours on your calendar. You can act on it in small pockets throughout the day — waiting for an Uber, in line at CVS, when you have five minutes to spare before a meeting. Ditch the social media scroll and do something valuable with these idle minutes.

Doors open for those willing to knock. It's no secret that those who create and maintain sincere relationships experience more opportunities over time. Your network provides a safety net and a steady foundation for information-sharing, mutual support, and fun, so stay connected.

Susie Moore is a former sales director and startup advisor, a life coach and advice columnist, and the host of the Let It Be Easy podcast.

• Are you still paying for cable TV?
• If so, consider that the people who own cable TV networks seem increasingly uninterested in hanging on to them.
• That's the real story behind WBD's corporate maneuvering Thursday — to make a cable TV spinoff or sale much more likely.

Comcast is ditching its cable TV networks. Now Warner Bros. Discovery may do the same.

That's the takeaway from Thursday's news that WBD is splitting up its cable TV business from its streaming and studio operations.

To be clear: WBD is not saying that it intends to ditch its cable networks, like TNT and Food Network.

Instead, it's using hand-wavy language like "a new corporate structure designed to enhance its strategic flexibility and create potential opportunities to unlock additional shareholder value" to describe what it's doing.

But to be super clear: The reason WBD is doing this now is so it can get rid of its cable operations in the future, perhaps by merging them with the cable TV spinoff that Comcast has planned for next year. And, just as important, because it wants to tell Wall Street that a breakup is on the table.

Not coincidentally, WBD shares are up 13% on the news.

Reminder: WBD has floated this idea before, though less formally. Earlier this summer, WBD execs said (quietly) they were looking at the same kind of corporate restructuring, and then decided to back off the idea.

What has changed since then?

On the one hand, not a lot. The structural challenges around a split still remain: Namely, the fact that while cable TV networks are declining assets, they're still profitable ones, and those profits help keep their owners' other assets afloat.

On the other hand: Now that Comcast has announced it is absolutely going to split off its declining cable TV assets, it helps make other splits more likely. That's because Comcast's spun-off cable TV operation will want to find other cable TV networks to add to its collection so it can increase negotiating power. Which (potentially) solves the "who wants to buy a declining asset?" problem WBD was looking at before.

Also of note: Donald Trump's second term in office may be much, much friendlier to consolidation, as WBD CEO David Zaslav noted the morning after Trump's election. (Reminder: The Trump 2.0 merger mania many people expect may not extend across the board. Trump's incoming team continues to make noise about reining in Big Tech, and that scrutiny may also apply to (at least some parts of) Big Media.)

All of which is worth remembering if you still pay for a package of cable TV networks, which means you are continually being asked to pay more for them. (Just Thursday, Google said it was hiking the price of its YouTube TV cable bundle by 14%.) You, the consumer, are being told cable TV is worth paying more for. But cable TV owners want to get these things off their books.

• Some Spotify users this year lambasted the music streaming app's popular year-end round-up, Wrapped.
• A former Spotify engineer described what was different about Wrapped this year.
• Despite the negative reception, this year's Wrapped was the biggest the company has seen.

When Spotify dropped its viral year-end musical round-up Wrapped earlier this month, the disappointment online was palpable.

"I'm not usually one to complain but this was one of the most boring Spotify Wrapped recaps I've been a part of and I've been a member since 2017," Business Insider reported a Reddit user said.

"Spotify wrapped flopped this year so bad like where are the music cities, the playlists, the top genres or the listening auras… all that wait for WHAT," a user on X wrote.

Spotify superfan Sydney Brown told The New York Times her annual Wrapped release is "like my Super Bowl," but this year, she felt like her round-up was "a homework project that was turned in late."

While the company said a record number of users checked out their Wrapped this year, an engineer who once worked on the feature said he understands why many online were disappointed.

Glenn McDonald is a former Spotify software engineer who worked on projects including Wrapped for over a decade before being caught in one of several rounds of sweeping layoffs that saw a 25% staff reduction.

This year, Wrapped "didn't give me any context," McDonald told Business Insider.

"It didn't connect me to communities or the world, or put my listening in relationship to anything," he said. "So, for me, it misses the important potential of a streaming service where everybody is listening together and just treats it as if each individual listener is listening by themselves."

The Wrapped 2024 round-up skipped the genre stories and cultural comparisons found in previous editions, instead creating an AI "podcast" of computer-generated voices talking through users' listening stats and briefly describing what emotional "era" their listening habits might suggest.

While some users called it a flop, a Spotify spokesperson told Business Insider it was the biggest year yet for the music streaming app's year-end round-up.

"In the first 12 hours this year's Wrapped was the biggest we've seen, up over 26% compared to day one in 2023," the Spotify spokesperson told BI. And while the company tracks user reactions on social media — both negative and positive — internal engagement statistics showed a record number of individual shares "and the biggest volume we've ever seen across the entire experience."

A missed bet on the cutting-edge

Spotify wanted to embrace the cutting-edge features that AI has made possible, the spokesperson said. Still, it did not intend to diminish the humanistic elements of the Wrapped experience that users love.

In prior years, McDonald was on the team that brought Spotify users Wrapped features, including a Myers-Briggs-style description of the way users listen to music, comparisons of their music tastes to cities around the world, and genre stories that revealed the top types of music users were listening to.

He said those cultural elements weren't a priority this year, and the company leaned too much into "AI that doesn't really add anything to your life."

McDonald, a proponent of artificial intelligence who now works for an AI startup, said Spotify has always treated Wrapped primarily as a marketing exercise meant to go viral as users share their results. While he was at the company, he had to push for more community-focused features, he told BI.

"It's sort of hard to try to infuse humanity into a marketing exercise. It's not easy, and you're not always thanked for it," McDonald said.

He pointed to last year's layoffs as one reason remaining engineers may not have felt motivated to go the extra distance this year: "It doesn't surprise me that maybe anybody the following year looking at what happened last year goes, 'maybe I won't stick my neck out,'" he said.

While Spotify hasn't decided what future editions of Wrapped may include, the spokesperson said its features change each year to give users more of what they want.

On April 27, 2023, Diana Kulyk's father told her he was leaving the next day to start training to fight Russia. She was filled with dread but knew she needed to act. Her hands shaking, Kulyk, a 24-year-old only child, tried to type the perfect tweet that would convince her roughly 20,000 followers to donate more than $3,000 for equipment that would help keep her father alive.

"Hello, this is the most important tweet I have ever written," she began. "I'm Diana Kulyk, daughter of Ruslan Kulyk. My father is a simple man, a baker by profession, a human being full of love and care. The person who took care of me since I came into this world. He needs help." Beneath the text were two images: a selfie of Diana and Ruslan smiling under golden-hour sunlight, and a spreadsheet of equipment she'd determined her father needed for the battlefield, including steel body armor, a tactical headset, a ballistic helmet, and a sleep mat.

Diana had already raised about $30,000 over the previous year to buy protective gear for childhood friends fighting in Ukraine. Within two hours of posting about her father, she had raised enough to buy all 21 items on the spreadsheet. The donors came from all over: Ukraine, the United States, Germany, England.

Watching the donations flood in, Diana was overwhelmed. "It was a really weird moment," she says. "You are so scared, but also you see everyone coming together to help you. It gives you hope."

Diana's efforts are part of an immense crowdfunding movement helping fuel Ukraine's fight against Russia's far larger and more advanced military. The Ukrainian government has its own crowdsourcing platforms, like United24, which has raised more than $761 million to pay for things like ambulances and demining equipment and to reconstruct destroyed buildings. Individual military units are using social media to campaign for the specific gear they need on the front lines. The 79th Separate Airborne Assault Brigade, for example, has used Instagram to gather donations for reconnaissance drones, generators, and night-vision goggles. And thousands of volunteers are raising funds to directly supply their loved ones on the battlefield with walkie-talkies, combat boots, Starlink internet satellites, medical supplies, ammunition, tanks, and phone chargers.

People have crowdfunded wars throughout history. In World War II, the Supermarine Spitfire, a British fighter aircraft, was largely financed by bake sales and fundraisers at primary schools. But never have funds been raised so easily, quickly, widely, and strategically by civilians and individual troops, says Keir Giles, a defense expert at the think tank Chatham House. "That's a big advantage," he says. With the modern tools of social media, influencer marketing tactics, crowdfunding platforms, and frontline postal services, "units can campaign for precisely the equipment and weapons they need and have them delivered."

Benjamin Jensen, a war-strategy expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, describes this crowdfunding as a "game changer." People around the world, he says, are directly "buying commercial off-the-shelf capability to enhance combat power on the battlefield," often acting much more nimbly than the military.

Crowdfunding is also increasingly critical. While Western nations have contributed nearly $300 billion worth of aid, Ukraine's military has repeatedly suffered from shortages of key weaponry and defense equipment. Three grueling years in, several countries and leaders are weighing whether they'll continue their support — including the United States and President-elect Donald Trump, a frequent critic of US aid to Ukraine. The Ukrainian government said last year that crowdfunding accounted for 3% of the country's total military spending. To win the war, that number may need to climb. But fundraisers are struggling with fatigue among citizen donors and are getting creative to keep up funds and morale.

Before the war, Ruslan Kulyk was a pastry chef who made wedding cakes in Spain, where the family immigrated when Diana was young. When the wedding industry slowed in the winter, he visited family in Ukraine's northeastern Sumy region. On February 24, 2022, he was preparing to return to Spain when Vladimir Putin launched Russia's full-scale invasion. Landlocked and infuriated, he joined his nephew at the military registration office. Recruiters enlisted his nephew but turned Ruslan away. "I wasn't prepared and was 50 years old," he says.

He got a job at a local bakery. He trained hard, dropping more than 50 pounds in 14 months. By the time he went back to enlist, Ukraine was thought to have lost as many as 17,500 soldiers and badly needed more men on the front lines.

After training in Kyiv, Ruslan joined a "storm" brigade, an extremely dangerous type of counteroffensive unit that often operates on the edge of Russian strongholds. Diana and Ruslan talked frequently, but his work often required him to go dark for days on end. For Diana, the wait was terrifying. She scoured the news to see where "the hottest part" of the fighting was, figuring that's where her father would be. "You wake up every day thinking I'm going to have bad news today," she says.

Being able to crowdfund equipment for her father and his fellow soldiers has given Diana a semblance of control to counter the nauseating sense of helplessness. It has also helped save lives.

In the summer of 2023, Ruslan texted his daughter, "I'm going on a mission." Four days later, he called from the hospital. He had been sent to Bakhmut, where a Russian drone had exploded 18 inches from his head, giving him and three of his comrades concussions. One was so severely injured that he had to be wrapped in a tourniquet that Diana had fundraised for. (The soldier's leg was amputated, and he's now with his family.) Diana spent a week with her father as he recovered in the hospital.

When he returned to active duty, Ruslan became a drone operator. Though he was farther from the front lines, he was arguably in even more danger. Drone operators have been very effective: Citing Ukrainian military commanders, The New York Times reported last month that Ukraine's drones accounted for at least 80% of Russian front-line losses. Several Ukrainian drone operators have told Business Insider that because of this, they are disproportionately in the enemy's crosshairs. Ruslan calls drone operators Russia's "target No. 1." This October, while in the Luhansk region, Ruslan used a surveillance drone Diana had raised funds for to spot four Russian soldiers advancing toward his unit, giving Ruslan and his comrades enough time to avert an onslaught.

Diana has raised more than $100,000 for drones, jackets, boots, helmets, medical supplies, trench-digging equipment, and thermal-vision gear. She credits part of her success to "how transparent I am with my situation, with my family." Much of her support comes from partnering with NAFO, the North Atlantic Fella Organization, an online community playing on the NATO name that challenges Russian disinformation, largely through dog memes.

Some crowdfunders encourage donations by sharing stories about themselves or their friends. Some host livestreams or ask followers to celebrate their birthday by donating to a soldier's unit. Others offer services and products: You can get a message written on ammunition to be fired at Russian targets or buy artwork made of bullets, shells, and destroyed Russian equipment and uniforms.

Dimko Zhluktenko, a 26-year-old former IT manager in Kyiv, didn't join the military at the start of the war. "I chickened out in the beginning a bit," he says, and he was taking care of his sick mother. But he knew his tech skills could allow him to help Ukraine in another way. It was obvious to him that the military wasn't getting the resources needed to win the war, so he started buying protective gear for his friends.

He posted about his efforts on X, sharing stories of his childhood friends on the front lines, like Max, who destroyed a bridge to stop a key Russian advance. His followers responded. "Many people started asking, 'How can I send you money?'" he says. By April 2022, Zhluktenko had received so many of those requests that he decided to work on fundraising full time, starting a charity organization to provide "high-tech equipment" that would increase "the efficiency of our forces." He called it Dzyga's Paw, named after his dog. Donors can get merch — like stickers, tote bags, and patches — based on how much they donate. He's raised more than $2.9 million from more than 28,000 individual donations.

Giles says that because the crowdfunding effort is so complex and unregulated, there have been "persistent allegations of fraud" against several groups. To counter that, Zhluktenko has made his organization radically transparent. On Dyzga's Paw's website, among other details about its budget, the organization keeps a daily log of its expenses. In one week in November, for example, it paid two employee salaries ($1,166.89) and bought 15 Starlink satellite receiver kits ($4,884.13), an F13-Retrik uncrewed aerial vehicle ($2,780.36), and paper clips ($0.75).

Zhluktenko is also transparent about who exactly is receiving which equipment and what they're using it for. To motivate people to donate, he constantly shares stories on social media about soldiers like Nazar, who coached a youth soccer team before the war. In a post on X in October advertising a fundraiser, Zhluktenko's organization wrote, "Nazar and his unit need essential equipment—from laptops to portable power stations and signal-boosting antennas for drones to be even more effective."

Dyzga's Paw also shares videos of frontline soldiers expressing gratitude, memes of gear en route to soldiers, and, crucially, footage of the gear donors have funded in action, often captured by drones they've also donated. Zhluktenko says these videos — often of Russian tanks being blown up or Russian soldiers surrendering — are extremely effective marketing: Donors "actually get to see the impact of the equipment they have sent" and how their donations "challenge the myth of an undefeatable Russian army."

Mats Kampshoff, a 25-year-old student in Germany, has given about $600 to Dyzga's Paw and other crowdfunding projects during the war, though he has no personal connection to Ukraine beyond the stories of soldiers he's been following. "Connecting this war effort with a daily life that I can connect to really brought home the point that I don't want this war to be around," he says. Donating feels "more like a logical decision than one based on morals," he says, adding that "it's just the small part that I can do to shape the world in the way that I envision."

In surveys of Ukrainians conducted in 2022 and 2023, almost 80% of respondents said they'd donated to some form of crowdfunding campaign during the war. Most of Zhluktenko's donors are from Europe, the US, Australia, Japan — "any countries Russia would call the collective West," he says. "There are people who have donated for 50-something weeks straight."

Hlib Fishchenko, 25, founded a volunteer organization called Vilni, which he said gets about 80% of its donations from Ukrainians. He raises money for items like excavators that help protect soldiers building trenches; the last one Vilni bought cost about $25,000, which it raised in a month. He said Ukrainian donors understand that they could donate to rebuild a school, or they could donate to help soldiers prevent Russia from destroying schools in the first place. They see their donations as preventive, he said, while some international donors are more willing to fund projects like reconstruction and medical aid.

Receiving donations for equipment is one thing. Getting the equipment to the front lines is another.

Zhluktenko's team goes on a frontline expedition about once a month. Their motto is "Just don't be stupid." In July they were driving toward Kharkiv when they learned of an imminent Russian glide-bomb attack nearby and changed their route.

Organizations and crowdfunders, including Dyzga's Paw and Diana Kulyk, often work with Nova Post, a major Ukrainian delivery company that delivers close to the front lines. Nova Post told BI that it delivers to residents and the military and that it stops only when the military "says that it is dangerous to work and forbids us to open branches." The company said that branches have indoor and outdoor shelters designed so that employees and clients can reach them within 30 seconds and that frontline branches have reinforced doors and windows.

The company's operations have only grown: It told BI it had opened 2,242 branches and two sorting offices and installed 1,853 parcel lockers since February 2022 and that it shipped 30% more parcels in 2023 than it did in 2022.

Experts say the crowdfunding of Ukraine's fight could offer a glimpse into the future of warfare. Major Western militaries are unlikely to start relying on crowdfunding anytime soon, given their extensive resources and stringent procurement policies. But Jensen, the war-strategy expert, predicts that crowdfunding via social media will be vital in "future insurgencies against authoritarian regimes." Giles says he's already seeing "more explicit calls on soldiers to equip themselves," with soldiers in countries like Latvia and Finland, which he says "may be facing Russian aggression next," buying more military equipment themselves.

Giles says this war might be unique in that it has dragged on long enough for these campaigns to develop. But it's also dragged on long enough for some support to wane. Several fundraising groups said they'd seen donations dry up in recent months; fatigue is setting in as the war concludes its third year. In November, an advisor to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told Bloomberg that the donations he'd received that month through YouTube livestreams had plummeted by two-thirds compared with what he raised in March. The advisor also said he feared that Donald Trump's return to the presidency would further hinder donations. "Floating talks about Trump's promise to end the war quickly and possibly bring peace reduce willingness of people to donate," he said.

One thousand and sixteen days into the war, fighting rages throughout Ukraine's east. Russia controls nearly 20% of the country. While there are no confirmed death tolls and estimates vary wildly, many tens of thousands of soldiers are believed to have been killed on both sides.

Zhluktenko got married in July and then signed a military contract. "Ukraine needs people fighting," he says. "It's impossible to win a war for your freedom without fighting for your freedom." On October 23, his birthday, he posted on X: "My birthday wish this year is survival. I don't need any gifts this year except something that will help me be effective in my military role and to survive." While he's on duty, his wife has taken over Dyzga's Paw.

Diana Kulyk completed another campaign several months ago, raising $48,000 to buy her father's brigade two pickup trucks with night-vision cameras and all-terrain tires. But she says that regardless or whether her dad needs anything, she spends much of her mental energy trying to prepare herself for the possibility of her father's death. She's lost friends in the war. She lost her cousin — Ruslan's nephew, who went to the registration office with him. And she's watched her father lose comrades.

"There is a high chance of it eventually happening, so I have been working on that," she says. "I have a phrase I came up with to tell myself: 'Better to be a man of honor than to live scared.'"

Sinéad Baker is a News Correspondent based in Business Insider's London bureau, writing about Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

• We ranked double cheeseburgers from 13 fast-food chains to see which one reigns supreme.
• 7th Street Burger, the smallest chain, blew me away with its saucy smash burger.
• I thought In-N-Out's famous Double-Double was great value and undeniably delicious.

Practically every fast-food chain sells a double cheeseburger, but which one is the best?

Burgers remain one of the most popular foods in the US throughout the rest of the year. A 2023 report by Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation found that 79% of Americans order burgers at restaurants at least once a month. And, while chicken tenders may be the hottest fast-food menu item of the coming year, burger chains like McDonald's and Burger King still trump most chicken chains.

Over the years, I've tried practically every fast-food double cheeseburger on the market. For a definitive ranking, I tried double cheeseburgers from McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King, Shake Shack, White Castle, Whataburger, P. Terry's, Five Guys, Cook Out, Checkers, Sonic, 7th Street Burger, and In-N-Out.

Here's every fast-food double cheeseburger ranked from worst to best.

My least favorite double cheeseburger was from Burger King. It cost me $3.89.

The burger was under $5, but I'm not sure it was worth the price.

It comes with two of the chain's beef patties, American cheese, pickles, mustard, and ketchup on a sesame-seed bun.

It comes with one slice of cheese.

This burger was super filling, but I liked the other burgers I tried more.

Right away, I tasted the thick beef patties. The burger had traveled a little more than 15 minutes from my local Burger King to my apartment, but the meat was still juicy and the cheese nicely melted.

The pickle slices were thick and crunchy, and I enjoyed the sesame-seed bun, which added a nice textural element. But I thought there was just a little too much ketchup, which will likely vary depending on who's making your burger that day.

It was also a little heavy for my liking. It filled me up a little more than I had anticipated before jumping into the rest of the burger comparison. Still, for a burger that costs just under $4, that might be more of an asset than a hindrance if you want a filling, inexpensive lunch.

Next was Wendy's double cheeseburger, which the chain calls a Double Stack. I ordered it for $4.49.

It was about the same price as the burgers from McDonald's and Burger King, though it landed squarely in the middle in terms of value.

A Wendy's double cheeseburger comes with two junior-size hamburger patties, American cheese, ketchup, mustard, pickles, and sweet onion.

The toppings looked a little stingy, and they were clustered in the middle of the sandwich. I would have liked to see them more spread out.

The burger bun was fluffy and light, and the toppings had a ton of flavor.

But I had to get a few bites in to reach the toppings in the center.

The toppings themselves were amazing. I thought the pickles were the most flavorful out of the burgers I tried, and I liked the use of an onion ring rather than diced onion, although I would've liked more.

The McDonald's double cheeseburger cost me $5.79.

It was slightly more expensive than Wendy's version but had more toppings. It came with an extra slice of American cheese plus chopped onions, and I thought it was still relatively affordable.

The double cheeseburger from McDonald's comes with two beef patties, pickles, chopped onions, ketchup, mustard, and two slices of American cheese.

I was interested to see if the added toppings would amp up the flavor.

I thought the ingredients came together well in this burger, but the bun was a little lackluster.

The bun held everything together and was a good size, but it was a little too soft and didn't have a lot of flavor on its own. But I enjoyed the amount of condiments and didn't find them overpowering.

The chopped onions added a lot of flavor, and the burger patties were juicy despite being thinner than the Burger King ones. I liked the added cheese but didn't think it was necessary.

Next up was the double-meat Whataburger with cheese.

It costs $9 at a Whataburger in Austin, excluding tax and fees.

I ordered it with a large bun, American cheese, grilled peppers and onions, pickles, and ketchup.

The burger was a decent size and I could see the gooey cheese peeking out from underneath the soft potato bun. 

Unlike the other double cheeseburgers, this burger had sliced jalapeño peppers that I imagined would add quite the kick.

The ingredients definitely set this burger apart from the others.

I thought the burgers had a delightfully crispy texture to them, and the toppings added a ton of flavor.

The bun was light and fluffy, but I did think the burger patties could have been a little thicker and juicier.

Coming in ninth was the double cheeseburger from P. Terry's Burger Stand, a regional chain I visited in Austin.

The burger cost only $5, making it one of the cheaper burgers I tried.

Despite being less expensive than the Whataburger double cheeseburger, the P. Terry's burger was larger.

I ordered it with pickles, onions, ketchup, mustard, and American cheese.

I again thought the cheese could have been more melted, but the size definitely made up for that small detail.

One of the benefits of ordering from P. Terry's is that you can easily customize your burger and add a number of toppings including grilled onions, the chain's special sauce, tomato, lettuce, and more.

I thought the burgers were juicy and the pickles had a tart crunch to them.

The bun was slightly underwhelming, but I thought it was an excellent, large burger with tons of flavor, especially for the low price. I also thought the mustard really came through and added a lot to the burger.

The double cheeseburger from Shake Shack was the second most expensive burger I tried.

I paid $12.49 for a double cheeseburger. I could customize my toppings, but I went with pickles, onions, and Shack sauce.

Right away, I thought the burger was massive.

The burger patties were perfectly crispy on the outside and covered in gooey melted cheese. The pickles also looked large and homemade. It was even heavy to pick up.

The toppings were generous and the chain's signature Shack sauce, which is a mayo-based sauce with a slight mustard flavor, made it really tasty.

The cheese was thick and perfectly melted.

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

The burger was huge, which was both an asset and a hindrance. I struggled to get through more than a few bites.

However, despite being the second most expensive burger, I thought it was worth the price. The burger patties were much thicker than the other burgers I tried, and the toppings took it over the edge in terms of flavor.

Overall, I was impressed ... but stuffed.

In seventh place was the double-decker burger with cheese from Checkers.

The burger has since been replaced with the Big Buford, which has all the same ingredients but a bakery-style bun instead of a sesame-seed bun. The burger costs $7.69 at my local Checkers in Brooklyn.

I thought this burger was a little pricey for the size.

It was smaller than my hand, though it did include a variety of toppings like tomato, lettuce, and red onion. The burger also comes with American cheese, dill pickles, ketchup, mustard, and mayonnaise on a toasted bun.

The burger patties were very juicy and the toppings tasted fresh.

I also thought the American cheese was very tangy and flavorful. Overall, I enjoyed the combination of flavors. However, the price prevented this burger from ranking higher. 

I also tried the double cheese slider from White Castle.

White Castle sliders tend to be eaten in pairs, so I ordered two. Each burger cost me $3.55, so I ended up paying $7.10.

The burgers were small but packed with flavor.

The burgers smelled strongly of onions and condiments the second I removed them from the bag.

The amount of toppings on each burger was generous.

The pickles were crunchy and flavorful. Though the burgers each had a bun sandwiched in the middle of the burger, it wasn't too bready — instead, it allowed the flavors to really come together while still being filling.

I was blown away by the cheeseburgers from White Castle, a result I admittedly wasn't expecting.

As the cheapest and smallest burgers, I was expecting them to be a little lackluster. However, I found that good things definitely come in small packages. The onions, condiments, and pickles were flavorful, but it was the beef that really impressed me.

The small-but-mighty burger was one of the most flavorful out of the ones I tried, easy to eat, and perfectly priced. 

My fifth-favorite double cheeseburger was from Five Guys.

Five Guys doesn't technically have a "double cheeseburger" — its regular cheeseburgers already come with two slices of cheese and two beef patties.

My burger cost $13.55, excluding taxes and fees, making it the most expensive burger I tried.

I was able to customize my toppings, but I ordered the burger with pickles, grilled onions, ketchup, and mustard.

Right away, I noticed that the toppings were generous. The pickle slices were large, and none of the toppings cost extra to add.

The burger was large without being too intimidating.

I thought it was a perfect size. It required two hands to pick up and eat, but it wasn't as heavy as the burger from Shake Shack. Slices of melted American cheese coated each burger, and there wasn't so much sauce that it dripped out from underneath the sesame-seed buns.

The burger patties were crispy on the outside but juicy on the inside.

I thought the pickle slices were thick, crunchy, and tart. I also really enjoyed the choice of a sesame-seed bun — it added a bit of texture to each and every bite.

The grilled onions also really impressed me. They were soft and almost caramelized, adding a lot of flavor that I didn't get from any other burger.

My fourth-favorite double cheeseburger came from Sonic Drive-In.

The SuperSonic double cheeseburger was the only burger I tried that came with lettuce and tomato. Since this was the default option, I decided to try it with these toppings rather than specifically remove them. 

The burger cost me $9.75, excluding taxes and fees.

The burger came with a hearty serving of shredded lettuce, tomatoes, two slices of cheese, diced onions, pickles, mayonnaise, and ketchup.

Unlike Sonic's quarter-pound double cheeseburger, which comes with two junior patties, the full-size burger has a combined half-pound of meat. 

The bun was perfectly soft but still held the sauce-covered burger together.

The ingredients tasted fresh and vibrant. The tomato wasn't too watery, the lettuce was crisp, and the burgers tasted well-seasoned and juicy. Plus, the burger was a very generous size. 

However, despite all these accolades, I thought the price was a little steep compared to what I got from Cook Out and In-N-Out.

My third-favorite double cheeseburger came from Cook Out, a regional chain I visited in South Carolina.

You can order a "big double" from Cook Out any way you wish, but I ordered mine with cheese, ketchup, mustard, onions, and pickles. It cost me $4.99, not including tax.

The burger came wrapped in foil and featured two juicy patties.

It also had thick slices of fresh onion and large pickle spears layered on top of the burger.

For the price, I thought the burger was out of this world.

The cheese slices were thick and tangy, and the burger was perfectly moist and medium-rare. It was also very large, and, after already eating dinner, I struggled to get through more than a few bites, though I kept wanting to go back for more.

At an amazingly low price, this burger definitely earned the second-to-top spot on my ranking.

My second favorite came from 7th Street Burger, a smaller chain based in New York City.

7th Street Burger is a small chain of quick-service burger restaurants with 19 locations in New York, New Jersey, and Washington, DC.

Since it opened in 2021, the chain has quickly grown a reputation for its no-frills approach to smash burgers, which feature crispy patties, gooey cheese, and the chain's signature sauce.

I ordered a double cheeseburger, which comes with two beef patties, American cheese, onions, pickles, and house sauce on a Martin's potato bun. It cost $9.50, excluding tax and fees.

There wasn't much customization to do for this burger — you can't order it with lettuce or tomato.

However, this burger was perfect exactly as the chain designed it. The burger patties were delightfully crispy on the outside yet managed to stay juicy.

Melted slices of cheese oozed between the two thin, expertly griddled, and charred beef patties, all smothered in the chain's signature sauce, a creamy, tangy take on classic burger sauce.

The burger was served on a pillowy-soft potato roll, which kept things simple.

There were no lettuce or tomato slices to cut through the rich, savory indulgence, but that only added to the burger's savory flavor. I didn't miss the opportunity to customize my burger with additional toppings. It was probably the best smash burger I've ever had.

With pickles and onions to round out the flavor, the double cheeseburger offered a satisfying, nostalgic flavor that elevated the classic smash burger experience.

In my opinion, the best double cheeseburger I tried was the famous Double-Double burger from In-N-Out.

It cost me $4.90, which I thought was an excellent deal for the large burger sitting in front of me. One of the first things I noticed was how thick the burger patties were — they were much thicker than other burgers I tried at a similar price point.

Most Double-Double burgers come with lettuce, tomato, onions, and spread.

To keep my burger similar to the other burgers I tried, I ordered it with onions, pickles, and spread, which I thought tasted similar to Thousand Island dressing.

The first thing I noticed about the In-N-Out burger was how juicy the burger patties were, followed by the incredible layers of cheese.

The cheese slices were perfectly melted and coated each part of the burger, something I couldn't say about any other burger I tried.

The bun was perfectly soft and held everything together perfectly, while the special spread had my mouth watering for another bite.

Of all the burgers I tried, I thought the In-N-Out double cheeseburger packed the most flavor for the best price.

When it came to a double cheeseburger, the West-Coast chain really nailed it. The burger was beyond flavorful, the perfect size, and, in my opinion, very good value for money.

The next time I'm in a state with an In-N-Out, I know where I'll be filling my burger craving.

• Jamie Lynch, an operations manager, has noticed key differences in her employees of different ages.
• Gen Z values work-life balance, unlike older generations who prioritize job commitment.
• COVID-19 influenced Gen Z's approach to work, emphasizing health over climbing the ladder.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Jamie Lynch, a 34-year-old operations manager and content creator in Ontario, Canada. It has been edited for length and clarity.

I've been an operations manager for eight years at various companies, including my latest role at a real-estate media company.

I now also run Simply Jamie, where I create content focused on conversations with my Gen Z employees on social media.

As a manager who has worked with people of all ages, I've noticed differences between employees of different generations.

They aren't necessarily bad, but they're eye-opening differences in how we work. Here are four of the biggest ones I've noticed.

1. To call out or not to call out

For the most part, boomers won't call off work. Instead, they might come to work and say, "My car broke down. I had to borrow my neighbor's car to arrive on time," — but they still made it in.

Millennials can be that way, too. When I worked at a restaurant in high school, my manager still expected me to come to work if I was sick — there wasn't an option or a second thought about not working.

Gen Z, on the other hand, might say, "Well, my car is broken," or "I'm sick, so I can't come in." They don't feel an overwhelming guilt about calling in sick when needed.

I think some of this feeling stems from the COVID-19 pandemic. For three years, we told everyone not to leave their houses if they felt sick, and the younger generation has carried that message into the workplace.

I know some employees in the older generation dislike the younger generation for it, but I respect them, and I wish I had a bit more of their work-life balance.

2. To make small talk or to just not

Boomers and millennials are more known for 'water cooler' talk — or small talk conversations in the office. Before technology took over, that's what everyone did. You'd talk about the weather; we weren't all holding phones to entertain us.

Now, Gen Z doesn't feel the need to have those awkward conversations at work. They've grown up with a new form of distraction that previous generations did not have.

COVID-19 also occurred at a critical juncture in the lives of many members of the younger generation, causing them to miss experiences like proms and face the challenge of attending college from home because they had nothing else. Due to this, they keep to themselves.

I don't blame Gen Z, but older generations judge younger ones for being less social.

3. What they know and what they don't

Gen Z is tech-savvy. I consider myself low-tech and often ask my younger employees for help with my phone. They can also grasp new things quickly.

I've noticed that Gen Z sometimes doesn't know how to do other important things, like writing a check, driving without a GPS, or mailing a letter — that's a big one. To be fair, why would they? It's rare for people to send letters anymore.

Boomers can do these things as they grew up doing them, but technology is often new and harder for them since they spent most of their lives without it. Learning how to sign in and out of apps, for instance, can be a bit more difficult.

4. What they care about

The older generations seem to be more worried about job security. They believe in working hard because that's what you're supposed to do: you go to work and you work.

They're also more willing to deal with difficult bosses. I remember my mom would say, "You just can't let people get to you. All your bosses are going to suck," and that was the widely held belief.

Gen Z, however, has a different mindset. They're not as focused on getting promoted or constantly moving up. They need money and want a job, but they're not necessarily aiming to climb the ladder.

Gen Z also sets stronger boundaries around things like criticism. I don't think it's bad — if your job isn't your whole life and personality, why should you worry about losing it?

Gen Z does seem to care about social issues, like saving the planet. For example, reusable cups are important to them.

Every generation brings something different to the workplace, a whole new set of strengths and weaknesses. Understanding and using them as advantages is the key to harmoniously working together.

• Ketaki Vaidya joined Oracle in 2017 as a new graduate in India.
• Vaidya advanced from associate software engineer to AI product manager in seven years.
• She said for overseas transfers, there's more than base pay to negotiate.

Ketaki Vaidya had worked in Oracle's office in Hyderabad, India for about five years when she wanted a change.

As a software engineer, she was keen to be part of Silicon Valley's innovations. She negotiated a move to California in 2022 and has since transferred to Seattle.

Vaidya shared how, over seven years with Oracle, she navigated two promotions, a career change, and the international transfer.

Associate software engineer

She began her post-college career as an associate software engineer at Oracle's office in Hyderabad, India.

One of the first things Vaidya did was gauge what her entire team wanted from her, instead of focusing only on her supervisor.

"Managers always take 360-degree feedback, and they go around the entire team and talk to the entire team to get a sense of what your work is like," she said. "When you keep your team happy, you automatically keep your supervisor happy."

She also scheduled regular check-ins with her manager to get feedback and she highlighted her aspirations, like working with particular software, so that her manager could tap her when the opportunity came up.

She made about 900,000 Indian rupees, or $10,700 annually.

Software engineer

Vaidya was promoted to software engineer after two years.

She said she followed female role models who reminded her to credit herself, not just the team.

Being vocal meant always discussing her next promotion and growth opportunity with managers. She made sure to document and communicate her successes.

"They knew that I was very invested in my career, and then my managers would really help me all around the year to get better projects."

In this role, Vaidya was paid 1.2 million rupees, or $14,200 annually.

Senior software engineer and team lead

After four years at the company, Vaidya was promoted to senior engineer, where she led a team of seven.

At the end of her projects, Vaidya said she found ways to demonstrate her work to leadership, like sharing what she learned on the team's group chat.

She also carefully filled out her annual appraisal documents, drafting them several times.

"I've seen that a lot of people don't take that very seriously, but it's something that goes into the system," she said. "That's going to be taken into account every time you move up the ladder."

In this role, Vaidya was paid 2 million Indian rupees, or about $24,000 annually.

Shifting roles and US transfer

As she progressed, Vaidya felt pulled to product management. She used her free time during the pandemic to chart what a job with more business strategy could look like.

"I set up 15-minute sessions with about 200 people on LinkedIn to understand what this field was," she said. "The more I talked to people, the more I realized it was something that I wanted to do."

She didn't think she had all the necessary skills, so she applied for master's courses specializing in product management in the US, so that she could better understand global work culture.

But when she tried to resign, Oracle "didn't want to let me go," she said. Her job was critical to releasing a product, so the company offered her a product management role in the US instead.

She negotiated a new salary with an eye toward the much higher cost of living in the US — even though Oracle was taking on significant costs, including for her visa.

"You can't let the excitement show in the conversations that you're having with your hiring managers," she said.

To gather salary data, Vaidya looked at Glassdoor and talked to people who had made the move before.

"I was being given this offer for the credibility that I had built in the organization. I felt like I had an upper hand in negotiating," she said. "I was much more confident in asking for the things that I deserve — so it ended up being a very smooth transition."

After negotiating her base salary up to $80,000, she discussed other compensation components, including her next review's timing, sign-on bonuses, relocation costs, paid leave, and remote work. She negotiated a sign-on bonus of $15,000 and relocation allowance of $15,000, which weren't part of the initial offer.

"Everything under the sun is negotiable and you just have to start with that mindset," she said.

The 2022 move took her to Redwood City, California, where she is an artificial intelligence product manager.

She has since moved to Seattle and plans to explore working in other US states.

Vaidya said that she has picked up two things from the work culture in the US: She has been inspired to work on projects beyond her job, such as speaking at conferences and hosting tech podcasts, and she has learned how to set better work-life boundaries.

Now, her compensation is about $130,000 annually, including stock units and bonuses. Business Insider has verified her work history and current compensation.

Do you work in tech, consulting, or finance and have a story to share about your career journey? Please reach out at [email protected].

• The College Board found that student-loan borrowing is decreasing while grant aid is increasing.
• It comes as colleges are facing enrollment declines and questions over the value of a degree.
• Education experts told BI these shifts could force colleges to change the way they charge students.

You may not have noticed that the cost of college is quietly going down.

That's because sticker prices at public colleges haven't kept up with inflation, and schools are offering more grant aid, bringing the average real cost down. Student loan borrowing has also decreased, showing how new students are less reliant on loans.

"It's really something that's never happened before, so that's pretty remarkable," Jennifer Ma, a researcher at The College Board, which reported these findings, told Business Insider.

Still, steep college costs remain a barrier for many seeking a higher education. Students are increasingly sensitive to taking out loans, and with many questioning the value of higher education, it's forcing colleges to consider whether they can still afford to raise tuition, even with a looming enrollment cliff and volatile state funding. It could shift the way tuition prices are set in years to come.

"For colleges, I think they're really up against those tough public perceptions right now of cost is up, and value is down," Michelle Dimino, the director of the centrist think-tank Third Way Education, told BI. "And so they're going to still be in a bind for a while figuring out, 'How do we mitigate that?'"

Student loan aversion and enrollment declines

Over 40 million Americans have student debt, and while President Joe Biden has taken steps to improve some programs to make the loans easier to pay off, high interest rates can leave many struggling to pay off their balances for decades. This is a big reason many younger Americans are leaning toward financing options that do not include student loans, like grants, or forgoing college altogether.

A 22-year-old previously told BI that avoiding debt was a key factor in her decision to skip college.

"I have no student loans, like so many of my friends are in $100,000 in debt and student loans just to get a job that pays $60,000 a year," she said.

The reluctance to accumulate debt could factor into the College Board's finding that student-loan borrowing has decreased.

"Students are feeling more nervous and more skeptical about taking out loans to go to college," Dimino said, adding that as a result, colleges should be prepared to respond to students' price sensitives, especially with looming enrollment challenges.

The enrollment cliff is something colleges cannot control. The number of high school graduates is expected to decline in the coming years because of birth rate declines, meaning fewer students could seek to enroll in a postsecondary institution. Data from the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education found that the number of high school graduates should peak in 2025 at 3.9 million, with a projected decline to 3.5 million by 2037.

Kimberly Dancy, associate director of research and policy at the Institute for Higher Education Policy, told BI that the declines in student borrowing could already be a sign of lower enrollment. She added that the students who are enrolling today might have less financial need than "students who were enrolling 10 to 15 years ago might've seen" due to the availability of aid like grants and scholarships.

Specifically, per the College Board, the maximum Pell Grant award for low-income students increased to $7,395 in 2023-24 from $6,895 in 2022-23 before adjusting for inflation due to a spending bill Biden signed into law. On top of that, institutional grants — or grants provided by colleges — to undergraduates increased by 30% between 2013-14 and 2023-24. Additionally, institutional grant aid for all students rose by $19.6 billion over the same timeframe, accounting for 52% of all grant aid in the 2023-24 school year.

With federal aid being volatile, institutions focusing more on grant aid could be a sign that colleges are responding to affordability concerns and contributing to net college price declines.

"Institutions will really have to grapple with if they do see a decline in state appropriations, maybe they can't raise tuition in the way they did in the past," Dimino said.

What's at stake for colleges

Over the course of the pandemic, colleges got government funds to help keep them afloat. Those funds have now run out, meaning colleges are subject to the volatility of the state budget funding cycle — and higher education is usually on the funding chopping block.

Jennifer Delaney, a professor in the School of Education at Berkeley, told BI that a main factor as to why higher education often doesn't get the funding it needs is because "institutions have figured out that students and families are more reliable at paying their bills than the state is." However, that type of thinking can make it difficult for colleges to best serve their students when they do not have reliable funding.

"The mission for colleges is advancing the human condition and advancing knowledge, and these are very long timeframe missions and goals, yet they're working within either annual or biannual budgeting cycles," Delaney said.

The conversation on the value of higher education could also be weighing on state's decisions to boost funding for colleges, leading some officials to think that "maybe it's not as worthwhile to invest in the sector," Delaney added.

Since state funding shifts, there are steps colleges can take to make higher education more affordable for its students. Dancy said the availability of institutional aid is a good first step, "using grants in ways that help them both attract students, to encourage them to enroll in their institutions and also as a tool for retention and to support degree completion for those students over the course of their education," she said.

To be sure, Dancy said that even with the increases in grant aid, there is still the issue of unmet need, which she defined as "a really substantial gap between what many students can afford and what they are asked to pay to enroll in higher education."

That's where the federal government can play a role. The left-leaning think tank Center for American Progress released recommendations for the government to boost college affordability, including strengthening the Pell Grant, implementing proposals to make college free for two years, and fully funding community colleges.

However, it's unclear where federal investment for higher education will sit under President-elect Donald Trump, placing the focus on colleges to consider ways to make a four-year degree affordable.

"Earning a college credential is still a worthwhile investment for many students," Dancy said. "And so addressing affordability concerns on the front end is a really critical way to ensure that that opportunity is available to more students."

• Buying a home in America today is no walk in the park.
• Buyers have higher mortgage rates and larger down payments.
• Nine charts capture how homebuying has become a larger challenge over the years.

Feel like buying a home is tougher than ever? You're not the only one.

Homebuyers are older than ever, make more money, and are less likely to have young children at home, based on historical data on homebuyers from the National Association of Realtors, or NAR.

These trends have largely resulted from declining housing affordability over the past several decades, Brandi Snowden, NAR's director of member and consumer survey research, told Business Insider.

"We're seeing that affordability is becoming increasingly difficult, with higher incomes needed to enter the market," Snowden said. "Buyers are also facing limited inventory, so they often need to search longer to find the right home."

Here are nine charts that show how the state of US homeownership has changed over the last several decades.

Data from the Census Bureau and the Department of Housing and Urban Development showed the median sales price of new houses in the US surged during the pandemic, reaching a peak of $442,600 in the fourth quarter of 2022.

Rising prices have made it more difficult for Americans, especially first-time homebuyers, to break into homeownership, as real median household income growth hasn't kept up.

"We've seen that first-time homebuyers have needed to be wealthier in order to be successful homebuyers, especially with rising home prices and interest rates," Snowden said.

The average 30-year fixed-rate mortgage has generally been rising this fall.

It was 6.84% as of the week ending November 21. While that's lower than a year ago and below the recent nearly 8% peak in October 2023, it's still a relatively high rate.

A higher rate plus more expensive homes leads to bigger monthly mortgage payments.

"A challenge for first-time homebuyers is higher mortgage rates, especially over the last year," Snowden said. "It could be a factor in their delaying a home purchase."

The typical down payment homebuyers put down has also been generally rising since the Great Recession.

The median down payment was 8% in 2009 and 2010. In 2024, though, it's typical for a homebuyer to make an 18% down payment.

Down payments of this size are not unprecedented: The median hit 20% in 1989 and 18% in 2001.

"We see that a large share of homebuyers, especially first-time buyers, rely on gifts or loans from family and friends," Snowden said. "They may also be tapping into stocks, bonds, or even their 401(k) for their down payment."

Snowden said that homebuyers may opt for a larger down payment that can help offset the mortgage interest rate with a lower monthly payment.

The climb in the median household income for people purchasing a home for the first time suggests Americans typically need to make closer to six figures to become homeowners.

In 1984, the typical household made $22,420 a year — or around $66,000 in 2023 dollars —while the typical first-time buyer made nearly $31,000 — or around $91,000 in 2023 dollars. In 2023, the median household income was around $80,600, and first-time homebuyers made $97,000.

Zillow research published earlier this year said people have to make over $106,000, 80% higher than what was needed in January 2020, "to comfortably afford a home."

Median incomes for homebuyers dipped in 2021 in part due to the kinds of areas people were moving to.

"Lower median income may be a reflection of buyers purchasing in more affordable locations such as small towns," a NAR report said, adding, "and an increased share of senior buyers who may be retired."

The share of first-time homebuyers dropped to just 24% in 2024, down from 32% in 2023 and a record 50% in 2010. This marks the lowest percentage since NAR began tracking the data in 1981.

The pullback in homebuying demand has been largely driven by the ongoing affordability crisis, compounded by a shrinking supply of entry-level homes.

There are fewer of these types of homes — typically smaller and more affordable for first-time buyers — on the market than there used to be, and the ones that are for sale are more expensive.

"We're seeing that the most difficult step for successful homebuyers is finding the right property," Snowden said.

In 2024, the median age of first-time buyers was 38, nine years older than in 1981. Meanwhile, the median age of repeat buyers increased from 36 to 61.

Unlike repeat buyers, who tend to be older and have more wealth or home equity, many would-be first-time buyers — often younger people, like Gen Zers and millennials — lack the financial resources needed to purchase a home.

Snowden said that many people are spending money on expensive rents, student loans, credit card bills, and car loans that they would otherwise set aside for a down payment.

As a result, many are postponing their plans to buy. Others may abandon dreams of homeownership altogether.

The share of homebuyers without children under 18 years old in their homes has widened to 73%, 10 percentage points higher than a decade earlier.

People without the financial demands of raising children tend to enjoy greater financial flexibility. Some can save thousands of dollars each year — which could be directed toward a down payment or other homebuying costs.

Married or cohabitating couples without children are often referred to as DINKS — an acronym for "dual income, no kids." Data from the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances shows that DINKs typically have a median net worth exceeding $200,000.

In contrast, many households with children experience financial strain, as parents allocate a significant portion of their income to day care, medical bills, and school tuition — expenses that can make saving enough to buy a home more challenging.

In addition to couples who never had kids, many baby boomers and Gen Xers who had kids are now empty nesters and may be looking to downsize.

Since NAR started collecting data, single women homebuyers have outpaced single men homebuyers, but the gap has grown.

Single women made up 20% of all homebuyers in 2024, while the share of single men purchasing homes dropped to just 8%.

Snowden said single women are often drawn to homeownership for several reasons, including independence, divorce, and the responsibility of raising children.

Snowden said that single female buyers are typically older than their single male counterparts, with the median age for single women at 60 compared to 58 for single men. "These buyers could be recently divorced or purchasing a home for more than just themselves, but also for their children and parents," she said.

Jessica Lautz, NAR deputy chief economist and vice president of research, said in a news release that "current homeowners can more easily make housing trades using built-up housing equity for cash purchases or large down payments on dream homes."

First-time homebuyers, meanwhile, tend to have to go through the process of taking out a mortgage, potentially losing their chance on a housing bid to those who have money ready for their next home.

The share of homebuyers who paid in cash climbed from 7% in 2003 to 26% in 2024. Snowden said this data is based on primary residences only, excluding investor properties.

Have you recently bought a home, or are you thinking of buying one next year? Share with these reporters how your housing search has gone at [email protected] and [email protected].

• I'm an interior designer who's worked with wealthy clients with large budgets.
• Lately, more clients have been asking me to include expensive conversation pieces in their homes.
• My wealthy clients also gravitate toward eco-friendly materials and statement stones, like onyx.

As an interior designer, I always love working with clients to create spaces that showcase their personalities and values, no matter their budget. But recently, I've had the opportunity to peel back the curtain and see what the wealthy are asking for in their homes.

Over the past year, I've been working with high-profile clients — from influencers to a CEO — with large budgets. So, I feel like I have a front-row seat to the latest trends in luxury home decor.

Here's what the wealthy are currently loving in their homes.

Clients are constantly asking for conversation pieces.

This might sound odd, but some clients insist on incorporating seemingly random, vintage (and, in my opinion, extremely overpriced) items into their homes.

These pieces have ranged from a salvaged fireplace from a 17th-century home in France to a weathered wooden door from an abandoned Italian villa. But honestly, I'm all for it.

Having something interesting to talk about when people walk in never hurts. Imagine someone complimenting your fireplace and casually replying, "Thanks, I shipped it from France." Talk about a conversation starter.

Custom art is becoming more popular among my clients.

I recently worked with clients who wanted art pieces that reflected their personalities.

Instead of picking something off the shelf, I made custom art that fit my clients' visions. Many of these pieces, which required large paintings or paper canvases, were very expensive to make.

Still, my clients loved being part of the creative journey, tweaking and perfecting their masterpieces until they felt just right. As a designer, seeing someone light up when they look at a one-of-a-kind piece hanging on their wall is fulfilling. 

Sustainability is definitely in.

Many of my affluent clients search for materials that look stunning and are made with sustainability in mind — think energy-efficient lighting, reclaimed wood, and renewable-energy sources.

For example, I've recently sourced sustainably made mattresses for a bedroom and salvaged boards from a barn for a kitchen backsplash.

I believe the future of interior design, especially in luxury homes, will revolve around sustainability. Over the next few years, I expect more designers to ask questions like, "How can we reuse marble to give it a second life?"

Statement stones like onyx and exotic marbles are popular among clients.

Gone are the days of plain countertops and all-white rooms that lack personality. Many of my high-end clients embrace bold statement stones like onyx and exotic marbles that showcase rich lines in the stone and make a striking impact.

Picture a kitchen with a stunning onyx backsplash or a bathroom countertop that elicits a "wow." Statement stones can elevate an ordinary space into something truly unique.

Custom-made furniture is definitely a favorite.

Custom-made furniture can be a game changer. I love the satisfaction of perfectly sizing a sofa to fit into a tricky corner or coordinating the trim on dining-room chairs with the fabric on a living-room couch.

Though custom pieces aren't essential — many of my favorite couches come from Ikea and other big-box stores — customizing furniture provides a chance to create unique items that reflect personal style and needs.

Clients who choose the custom-furniture route can select their preferred styles, source unique fabrics, and find ideal cushion fillings.

I've recently been incorporating ambient lighting into my clients' homes.

Have you ever walked into a nice restaurant and noticed a cozy vibe from the lighting? Ambient lighting — soft, glowing light that usually serves as a room's primary source of illumination — instantly makes everything feel more inviting.

Lately, my clients with big budgets are asking for custom ambient lighting in every corner of their homes. These fixtures, which range from LED strips tucked away in architectural details to beautifully designed lamps that cast a warm glow, create a luxurious, relaxing atmosphere.

Organic mattresses seem to be all the rage.

Some mattresses contain polyurethane foam, which can emit chemicals known as volatile organic compounds. Some of these chemicals can be harmful, so lately, I've been furnishing my client's bedrooms with organic mattresses instead.

I recently stumbled upon Avocado Green Mattress, a company specializing in organic mattresses and luxury bedding. So far, I've used the brand's mattresses and furniture in two of my projects, and they've been a hit.

Linen materials are everywhere.

Luxurious linens are popping up everywhere, and honestly, I couldn't be more excited about it.

Linen has proved to be so much more than just a bedding essential. The fabric has an effortlessly luxurious aesthetic, has great breathability, and is versatile enough for furniture, bedding, and window treatments.

Imagine draping your windows with stunning linen curtains that filter light and add a chic touch to your living space. Or how about reupholstering an old chair with some high-quality linen? This fabric can easily give your space a fresh new personality.

• President-elect Donald Trump is expanding his plans for tariffs on Mexico, China, and Canada.
• The US imports key goods from them that may increase in price, like electronics, oil, and gas.
• Trump's tariff plans could face legal issues, and he may choose not to implement them.

President-elect Donald Trump's newly expanded proposal to increase tariffs on the US's three largest trading partners could raise prices on various goods Americans rely on.

Business Insider looked at what the US imports the most from Mexico, Canada, and China to determine the products most likely to increase in price if Trump's plans come to pass.

The biggest categories are oil, electronics, and vehicles.

On Monday night, Trump posted on his Truth Social platform that on his first day in office, he would "sign all necessary documents" to impose a 25% tariff on goods imported from Mexico and Canada. He also threatened a 10% tariff on imports from China "above any additional" tariffs on that country.

While the feasibility and legality of Trump's proposal are still unknown, if implemented, the proposed tariffs could affect a wide variety of goods Americans use daily. The Census Bureau reported that in 2023, the US imported about $1.3 trillion in goods from China, Mexico, and Canada combined.

From Canada, the top 2023 imports included over $92 billion worth of crude oil, about $34 billion in passenger cars, and almost $9 billion in natural gas.

The US imported over $65 billion worth of car parts from Mexico in 2023, along with about $26 billion in computers, nearly $20 billion in crude oil, and almost $14 billion in medicinal equipment.

China, meanwhile, is a major supplier of electronics to the US. The census data showed that in 2023, the US imported nearly $67 billion in cellphones and other household goods from China, over $37 billion in computers, and more than $32 billion in games, toys, and sporting goods.

Some companies have already been preparing to increase prices as a result of Trump's tariff plans on the campaign trail. Walmart CFO John David Rainey told CNBC on November 19 that price hikes are likely on the horizon if Trump implements his tariffs: "We never want to raise prices. Our model is everyday low prices. But there probably will be cases where prices will go up for consumers."

This is the most detailed tariff plan Trump has released to date. On the campaign trail, he did not detail tariffs on Canada and Mexico — he proposed a 60% tariff on all imports from China, along with a 10% to 20% tariff on goods imported from anywhere else.

Trump appears to be using this round of tariff threats to push for changes in migration and drug policy in the targeted nations. "This Tariff will remain in effect until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country!" Trump wrote of the Mexico and Canada tariffs.

Some political leaders in Canada responded to Trump's threat on Monday night. François Legault, the premier of Quebec, wrote in a post on X that Trump's plan posed a huge risk to Quebec's and Canada's economies. Per a translation from X, he added: "We must do everything possible to avoid 25% tariffs on all products exported to the United States."

Additionally, Trump's plan could spark legal issues. Arturo Sarukhán, a former Mexican ambassador to the US, wrote in a post on X that the tariffs would violate the US-Mexico-Canada agreement, a free-trade agreement negotiated by Trump in his first term that went into effect in July 2020.

Companies and economists have said that Trump's tariff plans would increase consumer prices. BI previously reported that Trump's broad tariff proposals were likely to increase prices across the board, from clothes and footwear to computers and video games.

Trump has denied that would be the case. "I am going to put tariffs on other countries coming into our country, and that has nothing to do with taxes to us. That is a tax on another country," Trump said in an August speech.

The tariffs implemented during Trump's first term did not significantly influence inflation, but his proposals for his second term are much broader and could have a larger impact on prices if implemented.

At this point, however, Trump's proposals could still change. During his first term in 2019, Trump announced new tariffs on Mexico with the aim of strengthening the border, but following criticism from lawmakers — including some Republicans — he withdrew the plan.