• Tech layoffs surge even as US unemployment remains stable

    Although the US unemployment rate held steady at 4.2% in May with 139,000 jobs added to the US workforce, nearly 100,000 layoffs were also announced — up 47% from last year, according to new data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics and others. Tech and federal cuts led the way in layoffs, driven by economic pressure, programmatic firings and AI-driven shifts in workforce needs, according to outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas.

    Technology remains a top sector for cuts amid ongoing disruptions, according to the firm’s data. In May, tech companies announced 10,598 layoffs, bringing the 2025 total to 74,716; that’s up 35% from 55,207 at the same time last year.

    “Tariffs, funding cuts, consumer spending, and overall economic pessimism are putting intense pressure on companies’ workforces. Companies are spending less, slowing hiring, and sending layoff notices,” Andrew Challenger, senior vice president of Challenger, Gray & Christmas, said in a statement.

    Uneasiness continues to weigh on tech hiring, according to CompTIA, a provider of IT training and certification products. The unemployment rate for tech jobs in May was 3.4%, roughly in line with April’s 3.5%, CompTIA data showed. The tech unemployment rate continues to sit below the national rate.

    CompTIA

    Tech sector companies added a modest 1,571 net new employees in May, analysis of the BLS jobs report by CompTIA showed. Job growth in cloud infrastructure and tech services was offset by reductions in the telecommunications sector.

    Tech employment across the broader economy declined by an estimated 131,000 positions. “With prior month employment gains, tech occupation employment remains in the positive for the year,” CompTIA said.

    “It is undoubtedly a challenging time for employers and job seekers facing uncertainty on multiple fronts,” said Tim Herbert, CompTIA’s chief research officer. “At the same time, it requires taking a measured approach given the data continues to hold up reasonably well.”

    One bright spot for tech hires in May was the finance and insurance industry, which collectively saw a 21% increase in new tech job postings; new tech job openings also rose by 16% in the retail sector, according to CompTIA.

    Even so, tech layoffs have continued as AI adoption soars and economic pressures drive a major shift toward new roles and skills in the workforce. “AI isn’t replacing jobs,” said Kye Mitchell, president of tech workforce staffing firm Experis US. “It’s fundamentally redefining how work gets done. We’re seeing AI augment skillsets and make professionals more capable, faster, and able to focus on higher-value work.”

    Technology only displaces jobs when about 80% of tasks can be automated — and AI isn’t close to doing that, said Mitchell. Right now, AI is enhancing skills, boosting productivity, and freeing up time for higher-value work.

    Hiring for AI positions and those requiring AI skills continues to grow rapidly, according to a CompTIA analysis of data from Lightcast and Stanford University study. CompTIA found that employer job postings related to AI are up 117% year-to-date year-over-year.

    Challenger, Gray & Christmas

    Skills-based hiring remains core to many employers’ recruiting strategies. About half of all tech job postings did not specify a need for a four-year academic degree, seeking instead a combination of work experience, training and industry-recognized certification, according to CompTIA’s and other data.

    Even so, employers are hesitant to hire. “Economic uncertainty is absolutely creating a cautious hiring environment, but it’s more complex than tariffs alone,” Mitchell said. “Our data shows employers adopting a ‘wait and watch’ stance as they monitor economic signals, with job openings down 11% year-over-year.”

    Still, the tech job market is adjusting as AI adoption grows. AI skill mentions in job postings fell 10% in May but are still up 10% for the year, showing steady demand, Mitchell said.

    The tech industry had been nearly bullet-proof from mass layoffs prior to 2022. After a hiring surge between 2020 and 2022 to meet digitization efforts as more people worked from home, the market shifted and began slashing jobs to readjust to the new reality.

    Tech companies such Google, Amazon, Meta  and others laid off tens of thousands of workers  as an adjustment to over-hiring during the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2023 alone, 1,186 tech companies laid off about 262,682 staff, compared to 164,969 layoffs in 2022.

    In January 2024, job cuts leaped 136% over December and hit a 10-month high, according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas.

    While the labor market remained steady, there are signs that hiring across the board is softening. Open job postings fell 7% this year and new postings dropped 16% in the past month — the first full contraction of 2025. Year-to-date, new postings are flat compared to last year, according to Ger Doyle, ManpowerGroup’s regional president for North America. Doyle, however, was optimistic.

    “This is a chill, not a freeze,” he said. “Workers and employers are holding steady, awaiting clarity.”

    For example, he said, project management roles are up 483% year-over-year, and as the broader outlook improves, a rebound could follow, he added.

     Demand for data roles is surging as companies shift from AI experiments to execution. Database architect postings are up 2,140% year-over-year, with data scientist postings up 280% — clear signs of companies building the backbone for an AI-driven future, Experis’s data showed.

    “This shift is also reshaping how talent enters the industry. Entry-level opportunities are becoming more limited, making it harder for recent graduates to gain a foothold,” Mitchell said. “For those looking to break in, deep analytical and technical skills are no longer optional.”
    #tech #layoffs #surge #even #unemployment
    Tech layoffs surge even as US unemployment remains stable
    Although the US unemployment rate held steady at 4.2% in May with 139,000 jobs added to the US workforce, nearly 100,000 layoffs were also announced — up 47% from last year, according to new data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics and others. Tech and federal cuts led the way in layoffs, driven by economic pressure, programmatic firings and AI-driven shifts in workforce needs, according to outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas. Technology remains a top sector for cuts amid ongoing disruptions, according to the firm’s data. In May, tech companies announced 10,598 layoffs, bringing the 2025 total to 74,716; that’s up 35% from 55,207 at the same time last year. “Tariffs, funding cuts, consumer spending, and overall economic pessimism are putting intense pressure on companies’ workforces. Companies are spending less, slowing hiring, and sending layoff notices,” Andrew Challenger, senior vice president of Challenger, Gray & Christmas, said in a statement. Uneasiness continues to weigh on tech hiring, according to CompTIA, a provider of IT training and certification products. The unemployment rate for tech jobs in May was 3.4%, roughly in line with April’s 3.5%, CompTIA data showed. The tech unemployment rate continues to sit below the national rate. CompTIA Tech sector companies added a modest 1,571 net new employees in May, analysis of the BLS jobs report by CompTIA showed. Job growth in cloud infrastructure and tech services was offset by reductions in the telecommunications sector. Tech employment across the broader economy declined by an estimated 131,000 positions. “With prior month employment gains, tech occupation employment remains in the positive for the year,” CompTIA said. “It is undoubtedly a challenging time for employers and job seekers facing uncertainty on multiple fronts,” said Tim Herbert, CompTIA’s chief research officer. “At the same time, it requires taking a measured approach given the data continues to hold up reasonably well.” One bright spot for tech hires in May was the finance and insurance industry, which collectively saw a 21% increase in new tech job postings; new tech job openings also rose by 16% in the retail sector, according to CompTIA. Even so, tech layoffs have continued as AI adoption soars and economic pressures drive a major shift toward new roles and skills in the workforce. “AI isn’t replacing jobs,” said Kye Mitchell, president of tech workforce staffing firm Experis US. “It’s fundamentally redefining how work gets done. We’re seeing AI augment skillsets and make professionals more capable, faster, and able to focus on higher-value work.” Technology only displaces jobs when about 80% of tasks can be automated — and AI isn’t close to doing that, said Mitchell. Right now, AI is enhancing skills, boosting productivity, and freeing up time for higher-value work. Hiring for AI positions and those requiring AI skills continues to grow rapidly, according to a CompTIA analysis of data from Lightcast and Stanford University study. CompTIA found that employer job postings related to AI are up 117% year-to-date year-over-year. Challenger, Gray & Christmas Skills-based hiring remains core to many employers’ recruiting strategies. About half of all tech job postings did not specify a need for a four-year academic degree, seeking instead a combination of work experience, training and industry-recognized certification, according to CompTIA’s and other data. Even so, employers are hesitant to hire. “Economic uncertainty is absolutely creating a cautious hiring environment, but it’s more complex than tariffs alone,” Mitchell said. “Our data shows employers adopting a ‘wait and watch’ stance as they monitor economic signals, with job openings down 11% year-over-year.” Still, the tech job market is adjusting as AI adoption grows. AI skill mentions in job postings fell 10% in May but are still up 10% for the year, showing steady demand, Mitchell said. The tech industry had been nearly bullet-proof from mass layoffs prior to 2022. After a hiring surge between 2020 and 2022 to meet digitization efforts as more people worked from home, the market shifted and began slashing jobs to readjust to the new reality. Tech companies such Google, Amazon, Meta  and others laid off tens of thousands of workers  as an adjustment to over-hiring during the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2023 alone, 1,186 tech companies laid off about 262,682 staff, compared to 164,969 layoffs in 2022. In January 2024, job cuts leaped 136% over December and hit a 10-month high, according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas. While the labor market remained steady, there are signs that hiring across the board is softening. Open job postings fell 7% this year and new postings dropped 16% in the past month — the first full contraction of 2025. Year-to-date, new postings are flat compared to last year, according to Ger Doyle, ManpowerGroup’s regional president for North America. Doyle, however, was optimistic. “This is a chill, not a freeze,” he said. “Workers and employers are holding steady, awaiting clarity.” For example, he said, project management roles are up 483% year-over-year, and as the broader outlook improves, a rebound could follow, he added.  Demand for data roles is surging as companies shift from AI experiments to execution. Database architect postings are up 2,140% year-over-year, with data scientist postings up 280% — clear signs of companies building the backbone for an AI-driven future, Experis’s data showed. “This shift is also reshaping how talent enters the industry. Entry-level opportunities are becoming more limited, making it harder for recent graduates to gain a foothold,” Mitchell said. “For those looking to break in, deep analytical and technical skills are no longer optional.” #tech #layoffs #surge #even #unemployment
    WWW.COMPUTERWORLD.COM
    Tech layoffs surge even as US unemployment remains stable
    Although the US unemployment rate held steady at 4.2% in May with 139,000 jobs added to the US workforce, nearly 100,000 layoffs were also announced — up 47% from last year, according to new data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics and others. Tech and federal cuts led the way in layoffs, driven by economic pressure, programmatic firings and AI-driven shifts in workforce needs, according to outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas. Technology remains a top sector for cuts amid ongoing disruptions, according to the firm’s data. In May, tech companies announced 10,598 layoffs, bringing the 2025 total to 74,716; that’s up 35% from 55,207 at the same time last year. “Tariffs, funding cuts, consumer spending, and overall economic pessimism are putting intense pressure on companies’ workforces. Companies are spending less, slowing hiring, and sending layoff notices,” Andrew Challenger, senior vice president of Challenger, Gray & Christmas, said in a statement. Uneasiness continues to weigh on tech hiring, according to CompTIA, a provider of IT training and certification products. The unemployment rate for tech jobs in May was 3.4%, roughly in line with April’s 3.5%, CompTIA data showed. The tech unemployment rate continues to sit below the national rate. CompTIA Tech sector companies added a modest 1,571 net new employees in May, analysis of the BLS jobs report by CompTIA showed. Job growth in cloud infrastructure and tech services was offset by reductions in the telecommunications sector. Tech employment across the broader economy declined by an estimated 131,000 positions. “With prior month employment gains, tech occupation employment remains in the positive for the year,” CompTIA said. “It is undoubtedly a challenging time for employers and job seekers facing uncertainty on multiple fronts,” said Tim Herbert, CompTIA’s chief research officer. “At the same time, it requires taking a measured approach given the data continues to hold up reasonably well.” One bright spot for tech hires in May was the finance and insurance industry, which collectively saw a 21% increase in new tech job postings; new tech job openings also rose by 16% in the retail sector, according to CompTIA. Even so, tech layoffs have continued as AI adoption soars and economic pressures drive a major shift toward new roles and skills in the workforce. “AI isn’t replacing jobs,” said Kye Mitchell, president of tech workforce staffing firm Experis US. “It’s fundamentally redefining how work gets done. We’re seeing AI augment skillsets and make professionals more capable, faster, and able to focus on higher-value work.” Technology only displaces jobs when about 80% of tasks can be automated — and AI isn’t close to doing that, said Mitchell. Right now, AI is enhancing skills, boosting productivity, and freeing up time for higher-value work. Hiring for AI positions and those requiring AI skills continues to grow rapidly, according to a CompTIA analysis of data from Lightcast and Stanford University study. CompTIA found that employer job postings related to AI are up 117% year-to-date year-over-year. Challenger, Gray & Christmas Skills-based hiring remains core to many employers’ recruiting strategies. About half of all tech job postings did not specify a need for a four-year academic degree, seeking instead a combination of work experience, training and industry-recognized certification, according to CompTIA’s and other data. Even so, employers are hesitant to hire. “Economic uncertainty is absolutely creating a cautious hiring environment, but it’s more complex than tariffs alone,” Mitchell said. “Our data shows employers adopting a ‘wait and watch’ stance as they monitor economic signals, with job openings down 11% year-over-year.” Still, the tech job market is adjusting as AI adoption grows. AI skill mentions in job postings fell 10% in May but are still up 10% for the year, showing steady demand, Mitchell said. The tech industry had been nearly bullet-proof from mass layoffs prior to 2022. After a hiring surge between 2020 and 2022 to meet digitization efforts as more people worked from home, the market shifted and began slashing jobs to readjust to the new reality. Tech companies such Google, Amazon, Meta (Facebook) and others laid off tens of thousands of workers  as an adjustment to over-hiring during the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2023 alone, 1,186 tech companies laid off about 262,682 staff, compared to 164,969 layoffs in 2022. In January 2024, job cuts leaped 136% over December and hit a 10-month high, according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas. While the labor market remained steady, there are signs that hiring across the board is softening. Open job postings fell 7% this year and new postings dropped 16% in the past month — the first full contraction of 2025. Year-to-date, new postings are flat compared to last year, according to Ger Doyle, ManpowerGroup’s regional president for North America. Doyle, however, was optimistic. “This is a chill, not a freeze,” he said. “Workers and employers are holding steady, awaiting clarity.” For example, he said, project management roles are up 483% year-over-year, and as the broader outlook improves, a rebound could follow, he added.  Demand for data roles is surging as companies shift from AI experiments to execution. Database architect postings are up 2,140% year-over-year, with data scientist postings up 280% — clear signs of companies building the backbone for an AI-driven future, Experis’s data showed. “This shift is also reshaping how talent enters the industry. Entry-level opportunities are becoming more limited, making it harder for recent graduates to gain a foothold,” Mitchell said. “For those looking to break in, deep analytical and technical skills are no longer optional.”
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Angry
    Sad
    673
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos 0 Anterior
  • The Orb Will See You Now

    Once again, Sam Altman wants to show you the future. The CEO of OpenAI is standing on a sparse stage in San Francisco, preparing to reveal his next move to an attentive crowd. “We needed some way for identifying, authenticating humans in the age of AGI,” Altman explains, referring to artificial general intelligence. “We wanted a way to make sure that humans stayed special and central.” The solution Altman came up with is looming behind him. It’s a white sphere about the size of a beach ball, with a camera at its center. The company that makes it, known as Tools for Humanity, calls this mysterious device the Orb. Stare into the heart of the plastic-and-silicon globe and it will map the unique furrows and ciliary zones of your iris. Seconds later, you’ll receive inviolable proof of your humanity: a 12,800-digit binary number, known as an iris code, sent to an app on your phone. At the same time, a packet of cryptocurrency called Worldcoin, worth approximately will be transferred to your digital wallet—your reward for becoming a “verified human.” Altman co-founded Tools for Humanity in 2019 as part of a suite of companies he believed would reshape the world. Once the tech he was developing at OpenAI passed a certain level of intelligence, he reasoned, it would mark the end of one era on the Internet and the beginning of another, in which AI became so advanced, so human-like, that you would no longer be able to tell whether what you read, saw, or heard online came from a real person. When that happened, Altman imagined, we would need a new kind of online infrastructure: a human-verification layer for the Internet, to distinguish real people from the proliferating number of bots and AI “agents.”And so Tools for Humanity set out to build a global “proof-of-humanity” network. It aims to verify 50 million people by the end of 2025; ultimately its goal is to sign up every single human being on the planet. The free crypto serves as both an incentive for users to sign up, and also an entry point into what the company hopes will become the world’s largest financial network, through which it believes “double-digit percentages of the global economy” will eventually flow. Even for Altman, these missions are audacious. “If this really works, it’s like a fundamental piece of infrastructure for the world,” Altman tells TIME in a video interview from the passenger seat of a car a few days before his April 30 keynote address.Internal hardware of the Orb in mid-assembly in March. Davide Monteleone for TIMEThe project’s goal is to solve a problem partly of Altman’s own making. In the near future, he and other tech leaders say, advanced AIs will be imbued with agency: the ability to not just respond to human prompting, but to take actions independently in the world. This will enable the creation of AI coworkers that can drop into your company and begin solving problems; AI tutors that can adapt their teaching style to students’ preferences; even AI doctors that can diagnose routine cases and handle scheduling or logistics. The arrival of these virtual agents, their venture capitalist backers predict, will turbocharge our productivity and unleash an age of material abundance.But AI agents will also have cascading consequences for the human experience online. “As AI systems become harder to distinguish from people, websites may face difficult trade-offs,” says a recent paper by researchers from 25 different universities, nonprofits, and tech companies, including OpenAI. “There is a significant risk that digital institutions will be unprepared for a time when AI-powered agents, including those leveraged by malicious actors, overwhelm other activity online.” On social-media platforms like X and Facebook, bot-driven accounts are amassing billions of views on AI-generated content. In April, the foundation that runs Wikipedia disclosed that AI bots scraping their site were making the encyclopedia too costly to sustainably run. Later the same month, researchers from the University of Zurich found that AI-generated comments on the subreddit /r/ChangeMyView were up to six times more successful than human-written ones at persuading unknowing users to change their minds.  Photograph by Davide Monteleone for TIMEBuy a copy of the Orb issue hereThe arrival of agents won’t only threaten our ability to distinguish between authentic and AI content online. It will also challenge the Internet’s core business model, online advertising, which relies on the assumption that ads are being viewed by humans. “The Internet will change very drastically sometime in the next 12 to 24 months,” says Tools for Humanity CEO Alex Blania. “So we have to succeed, or I’m not sure what else would happen.”For four years, Blania’s team has been testing the Orb’s hardware abroad. Now the U.S. rollout has arrived. Over the next 12 months, 7,500 Orbs will be arriving in dozens of American cities, in locations like gas stations, bodegas, and flagship stores in Los Angeles, Austin, and Miami. The project’s founders and fans hope the Orb’s U.S. debut will kickstart a new phase of growth. The San Francisco keynote was titled: “At Last.” It’s not clear the public appetite matches the exultant branding. Tools for Humanity has “verified” just 12 million humans since mid 2023, a pace Blania concedes is well behind schedule. Few online platforms currently support the so-called “World ID” that the Orb bestows upon its visitors, leaving little to entice users to give up their biometrics beyond the lure of free crypto. Even Altman isn’t sure whether the whole thing can work. “I can seethis becomes a fairly mainstream thing in a few years,” he says. “Or I can see that it’s still only used by a small subset of people who think about the world in a certain way.” Blaniaand Altman debut the Orb at World’s U.S. launch in San Francisco on April 30, 2025. Jason Henry—The New York Times/ReduxYet as the Internet becomes overrun with AI, the creators of this strange new piece of hardware are betting that everybody in the world will soon want—or need—to visit an Orb. The biometric code it creates, they predict, will become a new type of digital passport, without which you might be denied passage to the Internet of the future, from dating apps to government services. In a best-case scenario, World ID could be a privacy-preserving way to fortify the Internet against an AI-driven deluge of fake or deceptive content. It could also enable the distribution of universal basic income—a policy that Altman has previously touted—as AI automation transforms the global economy. To examine what this new technology might mean, I reported from three continents, interviewed 10 Tools for Humanity executives and investors, reviewed hundreds of pages of company documents, and “verified” my own humanity. The Internet will inevitably need some kind of proof-of-humanity system in the near future, says Divya Siddarth, founder of the nonprofit Collective Intelligence Project. The real question, she argues, is whether such a system will be centralized—“a big security nightmare that enables a lot of surveillance”—or privacy-preserving, as the Orb claims to be. Questions remain about Tools for Humanity’s corporate structure, its yoking to an unstable cryptocurrency, and what power it would concentrate in the hands of its owners if successful. Yet it’s also one of the only attempts to solve what many see as an increasingly urgent problem. “There are some issues with it,” Siddarth says of World ID. “But you can’t preserve the Internet in amber. Something in this direction is necessary.”In March, I met Blania at Tools for Humanity’s San Francisco headquarters, where a large screen displays the number of weekly “Orb verifications” by country. A few days earlier, the CEO had attended a million-per-head dinner at Mar-a-Lago with President Donald Trump, whom he credits with clearing the way for the company’s U.S. launch by relaxing crypto regulations. “Given Sam is a very high profile target,” Blania says, “we just decided that we would let other companies fight that fight, and enter the U.S. once the air is clear.” As a kid growing up in Germany, Blania was a little different than his peers. “Other kids were, like, drinking a lot, or doing a lot of parties, and I was just building a lot of things that could potentially blow up,” he recalls. At the California Institute of Technology, where he was pursuing research for a masters degree, he spent many evenings reading the blogs of startup gurus like Paul Graham and Altman. Then, in 2019, Blania received an email from Max Novendstern, an entrepreneur who had been kicking around a concept with Altman to build a global cryptocurrency network. They were looking for technical minds to help with the project. Over cappuccinos, Altman told Blania he was certain about three things. First, smarter-than-human AI was not only possible, but inevitable—and it would soon mean you could no longer assume that anything you read, saw, or heard on the Internet was human-created. Second, cryptocurrency and other decentralized technologies would be a massive force for change in the world. And third, scale was essential to any crypto network’s value. The Orb is tested on a calibration rig, surrounded by checkerboard targets to ensure precision in iris detection. Davide Monteleone for TIMEThe goal of Worldcoin, as the project was initially called, was to combine those three insights. Altman took a lesson from PayPal, the company co-founded by his mentor Peter Thiel. Of its initial funding, PayPal spent less than million actually building its app—but pumped an additional million or so into a referral program, whereby new users and the person who invited them would each receive in credit. The referral program helped make PayPal a leading payment platform. Altman thought a version of that strategy would propel Worldcoin to similar heights. He wanted to create a new cryptocurrency and give it to users as a reward for signing up. The more people who joined the system, the higher the token’s value would theoretically rise. Since 2019, the project has raised million from investors like Coinbase and the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz. That money paid for the million cost of designing the Orb, plus maintaining the software it runs on. The total market value of all Worldcoins in existence, however, is far higher—around billion. That number is a bit misleading: most of those coins are not in circulation and Worldcoin’s price has fluctuated wildly. Still, it allows the company to reward users for signing up at no cost to itself. The main lure for investors is the crypto upside. Some 75% of all Worldcoins are set aside for humans to claim when they sign up, or as referral bonuses. The remaining 25% are split between Tools for Humanity’s backers and staff, including Blania and Altman. “I’m really excited to make a lot of money,” ” Blania says.From the beginning, Altman was thinking about the consequences of the AI revolution he intended to unleash.A future in which advanced AI could perform most tasks more effectively than humans would bring a wave of unemployment and economic dislocation, he reasoned. Some kind of wealth redistribution might be necessary. In 2016, he partially funded a study of basic income, which gave per-month handouts to low-income individuals in Illinois and Texas. But there was no single financial system that would allow money to be sent to everybody in the world. Nor was there a way to stop an individual human from claiming their share twice—or to identify a sophisticated AI pretending to be human and pocketing some cash of its own. In 2023, Tools for Humanity raised the possibility of using the network to redistribute the profits of AI labs that were able to automate human labor. “As AI advances,” it said, “fairly distributing access and some of the created value through UBI will play an increasingly vital role in counteracting the concentration of economic power.”Blania was taken by the pitch, and agreed to join the project as a co-founder. “Most people told us we were very stupid or crazy or insane, including Silicon Valley investors,” Blania says. At least until ChatGPT came out in 2022, transforming OpenAI into one of the world’s most famous tech companies and kickstarting a market bull-run. “Things suddenly started to make more and more sense to the external world,” Blania says of the vision to develop a global “proof-of-humanity” network. “You have to imagine a world in which you will have very smart and competent systems somehow flying through the Internet with different goals and ideas of what they want to do, and us having no idea anymore what we’re dealing with.”After our interview, Blania’s head of communications ushers me over to a circular wooden structure where eight Orbs face one another. The scene feels like a cross between an Apple Store and a ceremonial altar. “Do you want to get verified?” she asks. Putting aside my reservations for the purposes of research, I download the World App and follow its prompts. I flash a QR code at the Orb, then gaze into it. A minute or so later, my phone buzzes with confirmation: I’ve been issued my own personal World ID and some Worldcoin.The first thing the Orb does is check if you’re human, using a neural network that takes input from various sensors, including an infrared camera and a thermometer. Davide Monteleone for TIMEWhile I stared into the Orb, several complex procedures had taken place at once. A neural network took inputs from multiple sensors—an infrared camera, a thermometer—to confirm I was a living human. Simultaneously, a telephoto lens zoomed in on my iris, capturing the physical traits within that distinguish me from every other human on Earth. It then converted that image into an iris code: a numerical abstraction of my unique biometric data. Then the Orb checked to see if my iris code matched any it had seen before, using a technique allowing encrypted data to be compared without revealing the underlying information. Before the Orb deleted my data, it turned my iris code into several derivative codes—none of which on its own can be linked back to the original—encrypted them, deleted the only copies of the decryption keys, and sent each one to a different secure server, so that future users’ iris codes can be checked for uniqueness against mine. If I were to use my World ID to access a website, that site would learn nothing about me except that I’m human. The Orb is open-source, so outside experts can examine its code and verify the company’s privacy claims. “I did a colonoscopy on this company and these technologies before I agreed to join,” says Trevor Traina, a Trump donor and former U.S. ambassador to Austria who now serves as Tools for Humanity’s chief business officer. “It is the most privacy-preserving technology on the planet.”Only weeks later, when researching what would happen if I wanted to delete my data, do I discover that Tools for Humanity’s privacy claims rest on what feels like a sleight of hand. The company argues that in modifying your iris code, it has “effectively anonymized” your biometric data. If you ask Tools for Humanity to delete your iris codes, they will delete the one stored on your phone, but not the derivatives. Those, they argue, are no longer your personal data at all. But if I were to return to an Orb after deleting my data, it would still recognize those codes as uniquely mine. Once you look into the Orb, a piece of your identity remains in the system forever. If users could truly delete that data, the premise of one ID per human would collapse, Tools for Humanity’s chief privacy officer Damien Kieran tells me when I call seeking an explanation. People could delete and sign up for new World IDs after being suspended from a platform. Or claim their Worldcoin tokens, sell them, delete their data, and cash in again. This argument fell flat with European Union regulators in Germany, who recently declared that the Orb posed “fundamental data protection issues” and ordered the company to allow European users to fully delete even their anonymized data.“Just like any other technology service, users cannot delete data that is not personal data,” Kieran said in a statement. “If a person could delete anonymized data that can’t be linked to them by World or any third party, it would allow bad actors to circumvent the security and safety that World ID is working to bring to every human.”On a balmy afternoon this spring, I climb a flight of stairs up to a room above a restaurant in an outer suburb of Seoul. Five elderly South Koreans tap on their phones as they wait to be “verified” by the two Orbs in the center of the room. “We don’t really know how to distinguish between AI and humans anymore,” an attendant in a company t-shirt explains in Korean, gesturing toward the spheres. “We need a way to verify that we’re human and not AI. So how do we do that? Well, humans have irises, but AI doesn’t.”The attendant ushers an elderly woman over to an Orb. It bleeps. “Open your eyes,” a disembodied voice says in English. The woman stares into the camera. Seconds later, she checks her phone and sees that a packet of Worldcoin worth 75,000 Korean wonhas landed in her digital wallet. Congratulations, the app tells her. You are now a verified human.A visitor views the Orbs in Seoul on April 14, 2025. Taemin Ha for TIMETools for Humanity aims to “verify” 1 million Koreans over the next year. Taemin Ha for TIMEA couple dozen Orbs have been available in South Korea since 2023, verifying roughly 55,000 people. Now Tools for Humanity is redoubling its efforts there. At an event in a traditional wooden hanok house in central Seoul, an executive announces that 250 Orbs will soon be dispersed around the country—with the aim of verifying 1 million Koreans in the next 12 months. South Korea has high levels of smartphone usage, crypto and AI adoption, and Internet access, while average wages are modest enough for the free Worldcoin on offer to still be an enticing draw—all of which makes it fertile testing ground for the company’s ambitious global expansion. Yet things seem off to a slow start. In a retail space I visited in central Seoul, Tools for Humanity had constructed a wooden structure with eight Orbs facing each other. Locals and tourists wander past looking bemused; few volunteer themselves up. Most who do tell me they are crypto enthusiasts who came intentionally, driven more by the spirit of early adoption than the free coins. The next day, I visit a coffee shop in central Seoul where a chrome Orb sits unassumingly in one corner. Wu Ruijun, a 20-year-old student from China, strikes up a conversation with the barista, who doubles as the Orb’s operator. Wu was invited here by a friend who said both could claim free cryptocurrency if he signed up. The barista speeds him through the process. Wu accepts the privacy disclosure without reading it, and widens his eyes for the Orb. Soon he’s verified. “I wasn’t told anything about the privacy policy,” he says on his way out. “I just came for the money.”As Altman’s car winds through San Francisco, I ask about the vision he laid out in 2019: that AI would make it harder for us to trust each other online. To my surprise, he rejects the framing. “I’m much morelike: what is the good we can create, rather than the bad we can stop?” he says. “It’s not like, ‘Oh, we’ve got to avoid the bot overrun’ or whatever. It’s just that we can do a lot of special things for humans.” It’s an answer that may reflect how his role has changed over the years. Altman is now the chief public cheerleader of a billion company that’s touting the transformative utility of AI agents. The rise of agents, he and others say, will be a boon for our quality of life—like having an assistant on hand who can answer your most pressing questions, carry out mundane tasks, and help you develop new skills. It’s an optimistic vision that may well pan out. But it doesn’t quite fit with the prophecies of AI-enabled infopocalypse that Tools for Humanity was founded upon.Altman waves away a question about the influence he and other investors stand to gain if their vision is realized. Most holders, he assumes, will have already started selling their tokens—too early, he adds. “What I think would be bad is if an early crew had a lot of control over the protocol,” he says, “and that’s where I think the commitment to decentralization is so cool.” Altman is referring to the World Protocol, the underlying technology upon which the Orb, Worldcoin, and World ID all rely. Tools for Humanity is developing it, but has committed to giving control to its users over time—a process they say will prevent power from being concentrated in the hands of a few executives or investors. Tools for Humanity would remain a for-profit company, and could levy fees on platforms that use World ID, but other companies would be able to compete for customers by building alternative apps—or even alternative Orbs. The plan draws on ideas that animated the crypto ecosystem in the late 2010s and early 2020s, when evangelists for emerging blockchain technologies argued that the centralization of power—especially in large so-called “Web 2.0” tech companies—was responsible for many of the problems plaguing the modern Internet. Just as decentralized cryptocurrencies could reform a financial system controlled by economic elites, so too would it be possible to create decentralized organizations, run by their members instead of CEOs. How such a system might work in practice remains unclear. “Building a community-based governance system,” Tools for Humanity says in a 2023 white paper, “represents perhaps the most formidable challenge of the entire project.”Altman has a pattern of making idealistic promises that shift over time. He founded OpenAI as a nonprofit in 2015, with a mission to develop AGI safely and for the benefit of all humanity. To raise money, OpenAI restructured itself as a for-profit company in 2019, but with overall control still in the hands of its nonprofit board. Last year, Altman proposed yet another restructure—one which would dilute the board’s control and allow more profits to flow to shareholders. Why, I ask, should the public trust Tools for Humanity’s commitment to freely surrender influence and power? “I think you will just see the continued decentralization via the protocol,” he says. “The value here is going to live in the network, and the network will be owned and governed by a lot of people.” Altman talks less about universal basic income these days. He recently mused about an alternative, which he called “universal basic compute.” Instead of AI companies redistributing their profits, he seemed to suggest, they could instead give everyone in the world fair access to super-powerful AI. Blania tells me he recently “made the decision to stop talking” about UBI at Tools for Humanity. “UBI is one potential answer,” he says. “Just givingaccess to the latestmodels and having them learn faster and better is another.” Says Altman: “I still don’t know what the right answer is. I believe we should do a better job of distribution of resources than we currently do.” When I probe the question of why people should trust him, Altman gets irritated. “I understand that you hate AI, and that’s fine,” he says. “If you want to frame it as the downside of AI is that there’s going to be a proliferation of very convincing AI systems that are pretending to be human, and we need ways to know what is really human-authorized versus not, then yeah, I think you can call that a downside of AI. It’s not how I would naturally frame it.” The phrase human-authorized hints at a tension between World ID and OpenAI’s plans for AI agents. An Internet where a World ID is required to access most services might impede the usefulness of the agents that OpenAI and others are developing. So Tools for Humanity is building a system that would allow users to delegate their World ID to an agent, allowing the bot to take actions online on their behalf, according to Tiago Sada, the company’s chief product officer. “We’ve built everything in a way that can be very easily delegatable to an agent,” Sada says. It’s a measure that would allow humans to be held accountable for the actions of their AIs. But it suggests that Tools for Humanity’s mission may be shifting beyond simply proving humanity, and toward becoming the infrastructure that enables AI agents to proliferate with human authorization. World ID doesn’t tell you whether a piece of content is AI-generated or human-generated; all it tells you is whether the account that posted it is a human or a bot. Even in a world where everybody had a World ID, our online spaces might still be filled with AI-generated text, images, and videos.As I say goodbye to Altman, I’m left feeling conflicted about his project. If the Internet is going to be transformed by AI agents, then some kind of proof-of-humanity system will almost certainly be necessary. Yet if the Orb becomes a piece of Internet infrastructure, it could give Altman—a beneficiary of the proliferation of AI content—significant influence over a leading defense mechanism against it. People might have no choice but to participate in the network in order to access social media or online services.I thought of an encounter I witnessed in Seoul. In the room above the restaurant, Cho Jeong-yeon, 75, watched her friend get verified by an Orb. Cho had been invited to do the same, but demurred. The reward wasn’t enough for her to surrender a part of her identity. “Your iris is uniquely yours, and we don’t really know how it might be used,” she says. “Seeing the machine made me think: are we becoming machines instead of humans now? Everything is changing, and we don’t know how it’ll all turn out.”—With reporting by Stephen Kim/Seoul. This story was supported by Tarbell Grants.Correction, May 30The original version of this story misstated the market capitalization of Worldcoin if all coins were in circulation. It is billion, not billion.
    #orb #will #see #you #now
    The Orb Will See You Now
    Once again, Sam Altman wants to show you the future. The CEO of OpenAI is standing on a sparse stage in San Francisco, preparing to reveal his next move to an attentive crowd. “We needed some way for identifying, authenticating humans in the age of AGI,” Altman explains, referring to artificial general intelligence. “We wanted a way to make sure that humans stayed special and central.” The solution Altman came up with is looming behind him. It’s a white sphere about the size of a beach ball, with a camera at its center. The company that makes it, known as Tools for Humanity, calls this mysterious device the Orb. Stare into the heart of the plastic-and-silicon globe and it will map the unique furrows and ciliary zones of your iris. Seconds later, you’ll receive inviolable proof of your humanity: a 12,800-digit binary number, known as an iris code, sent to an app on your phone. At the same time, a packet of cryptocurrency called Worldcoin, worth approximately will be transferred to your digital wallet—your reward for becoming a “verified human.” Altman co-founded Tools for Humanity in 2019 as part of a suite of companies he believed would reshape the world. Once the tech he was developing at OpenAI passed a certain level of intelligence, he reasoned, it would mark the end of one era on the Internet and the beginning of another, in which AI became so advanced, so human-like, that you would no longer be able to tell whether what you read, saw, or heard online came from a real person. When that happened, Altman imagined, we would need a new kind of online infrastructure: a human-verification layer for the Internet, to distinguish real people from the proliferating number of bots and AI “agents.”And so Tools for Humanity set out to build a global “proof-of-humanity” network. It aims to verify 50 million people by the end of 2025; ultimately its goal is to sign up every single human being on the planet. The free crypto serves as both an incentive for users to sign up, and also an entry point into what the company hopes will become the world’s largest financial network, through which it believes “double-digit percentages of the global economy” will eventually flow. Even for Altman, these missions are audacious. “If this really works, it’s like a fundamental piece of infrastructure for the world,” Altman tells TIME in a video interview from the passenger seat of a car a few days before his April 30 keynote address.Internal hardware of the Orb in mid-assembly in March. Davide Monteleone for TIMEThe project’s goal is to solve a problem partly of Altman’s own making. In the near future, he and other tech leaders say, advanced AIs will be imbued with agency: the ability to not just respond to human prompting, but to take actions independently in the world. This will enable the creation of AI coworkers that can drop into your company and begin solving problems; AI tutors that can adapt their teaching style to students’ preferences; even AI doctors that can diagnose routine cases and handle scheduling or logistics. The arrival of these virtual agents, their venture capitalist backers predict, will turbocharge our productivity and unleash an age of material abundance.But AI agents will also have cascading consequences for the human experience online. “As AI systems become harder to distinguish from people, websites may face difficult trade-offs,” says a recent paper by researchers from 25 different universities, nonprofits, and tech companies, including OpenAI. “There is a significant risk that digital institutions will be unprepared for a time when AI-powered agents, including those leveraged by malicious actors, overwhelm other activity online.” On social-media platforms like X and Facebook, bot-driven accounts are amassing billions of views on AI-generated content. In April, the foundation that runs Wikipedia disclosed that AI bots scraping their site were making the encyclopedia too costly to sustainably run. Later the same month, researchers from the University of Zurich found that AI-generated comments on the subreddit /r/ChangeMyView were up to six times more successful than human-written ones at persuading unknowing users to change their minds.  Photograph by Davide Monteleone for TIMEBuy a copy of the Orb issue hereThe arrival of agents won’t only threaten our ability to distinguish between authentic and AI content online. It will also challenge the Internet’s core business model, online advertising, which relies on the assumption that ads are being viewed by humans. “The Internet will change very drastically sometime in the next 12 to 24 months,” says Tools for Humanity CEO Alex Blania. “So we have to succeed, or I’m not sure what else would happen.”For four years, Blania’s team has been testing the Orb’s hardware abroad. Now the U.S. rollout has arrived. Over the next 12 months, 7,500 Orbs will be arriving in dozens of American cities, in locations like gas stations, bodegas, and flagship stores in Los Angeles, Austin, and Miami. The project’s founders and fans hope the Orb’s U.S. debut will kickstart a new phase of growth. The San Francisco keynote was titled: “At Last.” It’s not clear the public appetite matches the exultant branding. Tools for Humanity has “verified” just 12 million humans since mid 2023, a pace Blania concedes is well behind schedule. Few online platforms currently support the so-called “World ID” that the Orb bestows upon its visitors, leaving little to entice users to give up their biometrics beyond the lure of free crypto. Even Altman isn’t sure whether the whole thing can work. “I can seethis becomes a fairly mainstream thing in a few years,” he says. “Or I can see that it’s still only used by a small subset of people who think about the world in a certain way.” Blaniaand Altman debut the Orb at World’s U.S. launch in San Francisco on April 30, 2025. Jason Henry—The New York Times/ReduxYet as the Internet becomes overrun with AI, the creators of this strange new piece of hardware are betting that everybody in the world will soon want—or need—to visit an Orb. The biometric code it creates, they predict, will become a new type of digital passport, without which you might be denied passage to the Internet of the future, from dating apps to government services. In a best-case scenario, World ID could be a privacy-preserving way to fortify the Internet against an AI-driven deluge of fake or deceptive content. It could also enable the distribution of universal basic income—a policy that Altman has previously touted—as AI automation transforms the global economy. To examine what this new technology might mean, I reported from three continents, interviewed 10 Tools for Humanity executives and investors, reviewed hundreds of pages of company documents, and “verified” my own humanity. The Internet will inevitably need some kind of proof-of-humanity system in the near future, says Divya Siddarth, founder of the nonprofit Collective Intelligence Project. The real question, she argues, is whether such a system will be centralized—“a big security nightmare that enables a lot of surveillance”—or privacy-preserving, as the Orb claims to be. Questions remain about Tools for Humanity’s corporate structure, its yoking to an unstable cryptocurrency, and what power it would concentrate in the hands of its owners if successful. Yet it’s also one of the only attempts to solve what many see as an increasingly urgent problem. “There are some issues with it,” Siddarth says of World ID. “But you can’t preserve the Internet in amber. Something in this direction is necessary.”In March, I met Blania at Tools for Humanity’s San Francisco headquarters, where a large screen displays the number of weekly “Orb verifications” by country. A few days earlier, the CEO had attended a million-per-head dinner at Mar-a-Lago with President Donald Trump, whom he credits with clearing the way for the company’s U.S. launch by relaxing crypto regulations. “Given Sam is a very high profile target,” Blania says, “we just decided that we would let other companies fight that fight, and enter the U.S. once the air is clear.” As a kid growing up in Germany, Blania was a little different than his peers. “Other kids were, like, drinking a lot, or doing a lot of parties, and I was just building a lot of things that could potentially blow up,” he recalls. At the California Institute of Technology, where he was pursuing research for a masters degree, he spent many evenings reading the blogs of startup gurus like Paul Graham and Altman. Then, in 2019, Blania received an email from Max Novendstern, an entrepreneur who had been kicking around a concept with Altman to build a global cryptocurrency network. They were looking for technical minds to help with the project. Over cappuccinos, Altman told Blania he was certain about three things. First, smarter-than-human AI was not only possible, but inevitable—and it would soon mean you could no longer assume that anything you read, saw, or heard on the Internet was human-created. Second, cryptocurrency and other decentralized technologies would be a massive force for change in the world. And third, scale was essential to any crypto network’s value. The Orb is tested on a calibration rig, surrounded by checkerboard targets to ensure precision in iris detection. Davide Monteleone for TIMEThe goal of Worldcoin, as the project was initially called, was to combine those three insights. Altman took a lesson from PayPal, the company co-founded by his mentor Peter Thiel. Of its initial funding, PayPal spent less than million actually building its app—but pumped an additional million or so into a referral program, whereby new users and the person who invited them would each receive in credit. The referral program helped make PayPal a leading payment platform. Altman thought a version of that strategy would propel Worldcoin to similar heights. He wanted to create a new cryptocurrency and give it to users as a reward for signing up. The more people who joined the system, the higher the token’s value would theoretically rise. Since 2019, the project has raised million from investors like Coinbase and the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz. That money paid for the million cost of designing the Orb, plus maintaining the software it runs on. The total market value of all Worldcoins in existence, however, is far higher—around billion. That number is a bit misleading: most of those coins are not in circulation and Worldcoin’s price has fluctuated wildly. Still, it allows the company to reward users for signing up at no cost to itself. The main lure for investors is the crypto upside. Some 75% of all Worldcoins are set aside for humans to claim when they sign up, or as referral bonuses. The remaining 25% are split between Tools for Humanity’s backers and staff, including Blania and Altman. “I’m really excited to make a lot of money,” ” Blania says.From the beginning, Altman was thinking about the consequences of the AI revolution he intended to unleash.A future in which advanced AI could perform most tasks more effectively than humans would bring a wave of unemployment and economic dislocation, he reasoned. Some kind of wealth redistribution might be necessary. In 2016, he partially funded a study of basic income, which gave per-month handouts to low-income individuals in Illinois and Texas. But there was no single financial system that would allow money to be sent to everybody in the world. Nor was there a way to stop an individual human from claiming their share twice—or to identify a sophisticated AI pretending to be human and pocketing some cash of its own. In 2023, Tools for Humanity raised the possibility of using the network to redistribute the profits of AI labs that were able to automate human labor. “As AI advances,” it said, “fairly distributing access and some of the created value through UBI will play an increasingly vital role in counteracting the concentration of economic power.”Blania was taken by the pitch, and agreed to join the project as a co-founder. “Most people told us we were very stupid or crazy or insane, including Silicon Valley investors,” Blania says. At least until ChatGPT came out in 2022, transforming OpenAI into one of the world’s most famous tech companies and kickstarting a market bull-run. “Things suddenly started to make more and more sense to the external world,” Blania says of the vision to develop a global “proof-of-humanity” network. “You have to imagine a world in which you will have very smart and competent systems somehow flying through the Internet with different goals and ideas of what they want to do, and us having no idea anymore what we’re dealing with.”After our interview, Blania’s head of communications ushers me over to a circular wooden structure where eight Orbs face one another. The scene feels like a cross between an Apple Store and a ceremonial altar. “Do you want to get verified?” she asks. Putting aside my reservations for the purposes of research, I download the World App and follow its prompts. I flash a QR code at the Orb, then gaze into it. A minute or so later, my phone buzzes with confirmation: I’ve been issued my own personal World ID and some Worldcoin.The first thing the Orb does is check if you’re human, using a neural network that takes input from various sensors, including an infrared camera and a thermometer. Davide Monteleone for TIMEWhile I stared into the Orb, several complex procedures had taken place at once. A neural network took inputs from multiple sensors—an infrared camera, a thermometer—to confirm I was a living human. Simultaneously, a telephoto lens zoomed in on my iris, capturing the physical traits within that distinguish me from every other human on Earth. It then converted that image into an iris code: a numerical abstraction of my unique biometric data. Then the Orb checked to see if my iris code matched any it had seen before, using a technique allowing encrypted data to be compared without revealing the underlying information. Before the Orb deleted my data, it turned my iris code into several derivative codes—none of which on its own can be linked back to the original—encrypted them, deleted the only copies of the decryption keys, and sent each one to a different secure server, so that future users’ iris codes can be checked for uniqueness against mine. If I were to use my World ID to access a website, that site would learn nothing about me except that I’m human. The Orb is open-source, so outside experts can examine its code and verify the company’s privacy claims. “I did a colonoscopy on this company and these technologies before I agreed to join,” says Trevor Traina, a Trump donor and former U.S. ambassador to Austria who now serves as Tools for Humanity’s chief business officer. “It is the most privacy-preserving technology on the planet.”Only weeks later, when researching what would happen if I wanted to delete my data, do I discover that Tools for Humanity’s privacy claims rest on what feels like a sleight of hand. The company argues that in modifying your iris code, it has “effectively anonymized” your biometric data. If you ask Tools for Humanity to delete your iris codes, they will delete the one stored on your phone, but not the derivatives. Those, they argue, are no longer your personal data at all. But if I were to return to an Orb after deleting my data, it would still recognize those codes as uniquely mine. Once you look into the Orb, a piece of your identity remains in the system forever. If users could truly delete that data, the premise of one ID per human would collapse, Tools for Humanity’s chief privacy officer Damien Kieran tells me when I call seeking an explanation. People could delete and sign up for new World IDs after being suspended from a platform. Or claim their Worldcoin tokens, sell them, delete their data, and cash in again. This argument fell flat with European Union regulators in Germany, who recently declared that the Orb posed “fundamental data protection issues” and ordered the company to allow European users to fully delete even their anonymized data.“Just like any other technology service, users cannot delete data that is not personal data,” Kieran said in a statement. “If a person could delete anonymized data that can’t be linked to them by World or any third party, it would allow bad actors to circumvent the security and safety that World ID is working to bring to every human.”On a balmy afternoon this spring, I climb a flight of stairs up to a room above a restaurant in an outer suburb of Seoul. Five elderly South Koreans tap on their phones as they wait to be “verified” by the two Orbs in the center of the room. “We don’t really know how to distinguish between AI and humans anymore,” an attendant in a company t-shirt explains in Korean, gesturing toward the spheres. “We need a way to verify that we’re human and not AI. So how do we do that? Well, humans have irises, but AI doesn’t.”The attendant ushers an elderly woman over to an Orb. It bleeps. “Open your eyes,” a disembodied voice says in English. The woman stares into the camera. Seconds later, she checks her phone and sees that a packet of Worldcoin worth 75,000 Korean wonhas landed in her digital wallet. Congratulations, the app tells her. You are now a verified human.A visitor views the Orbs in Seoul on April 14, 2025. Taemin Ha for TIMETools for Humanity aims to “verify” 1 million Koreans over the next year. Taemin Ha for TIMEA couple dozen Orbs have been available in South Korea since 2023, verifying roughly 55,000 people. Now Tools for Humanity is redoubling its efforts there. At an event in a traditional wooden hanok house in central Seoul, an executive announces that 250 Orbs will soon be dispersed around the country—with the aim of verifying 1 million Koreans in the next 12 months. South Korea has high levels of smartphone usage, crypto and AI adoption, and Internet access, while average wages are modest enough for the free Worldcoin on offer to still be an enticing draw—all of which makes it fertile testing ground for the company’s ambitious global expansion. Yet things seem off to a slow start. In a retail space I visited in central Seoul, Tools for Humanity had constructed a wooden structure with eight Orbs facing each other. Locals and tourists wander past looking bemused; few volunteer themselves up. Most who do tell me they are crypto enthusiasts who came intentionally, driven more by the spirit of early adoption than the free coins. The next day, I visit a coffee shop in central Seoul where a chrome Orb sits unassumingly in one corner. Wu Ruijun, a 20-year-old student from China, strikes up a conversation with the barista, who doubles as the Orb’s operator. Wu was invited here by a friend who said both could claim free cryptocurrency if he signed up. The barista speeds him through the process. Wu accepts the privacy disclosure without reading it, and widens his eyes for the Orb. Soon he’s verified. “I wasn’t told anything about the privacy policy,” he says on his way out. “I just came for the money.”As Altman’s car winds through San Francisco, I ask about the vision he laid out in 2019: that AI would make it harder for us to trust each other online. To my surprise, he rejects the framing. “I’m much morelike: what is the good we can create, rather than the bad we can stop?” he says. “It’s not like, ‘Oh, we’ve got to avoid the bot overrun’ or whatever. It’s just that we can do a lot of special things for humans.” It’s an answer that may reflect how his role has changed over the years. Altman is now the chief public cheerleader of a billion company that’s touting the transformative utility of AI agents. The rise of agents, he and others say, will be a boon for our quality of life—like having an assistant on hand who can answer your most pressing questions, carry out mundane tasks, and help you develop new skills. It’s an optimistic vision that may well pan out. But it doesn’t quite fit with the prophecies of AI-enabled infopocalypse that Tools for Humanity was founded upon.Altman waves away a question about the influence he and other investors stand to gain if their vision is realized. Most holders, he assumes, will have already started selling their tokens—too early, he adds. “What I think would be bad is if an early crew had a lot of control over the protocol,” he says, “and that’s where I think the commitment to decentralization is so cool.” Altman is referring to the World Protocol, the underlying technology upon which the Orb, Worldcoin, and World ID all rely. Tools for Humanity is developing it, but has committed to giving control to its users over time—a process they say will prevent power from being concentrated in the hands of a few executives or investors. Tools for Humanity would remain a for-profit company, and could levy fees on platforms that use World ID, but other companies would be able to compete for customers by building alternative apps—or even alternative Orbs. The plan draws on ideas that animated the crypto ecosystem in the late 2010s and early 2020s, when evangelists for emerging blockchain technologies argued that the centralization of power—especially in large so-called “Web 2.0” tech companies—was responsible for many of the problems plaguing the modern Internet. Just as decentralized cryptocurrencies could reform a financial system controlled by economic elites, so too would it be possible to create decentralized organizations, run by their members instead of CEOs. How such a system might work in practice remains unclear. “Building a community-based governance system,” Tools for Humanity says in a 2023 white paper, “represents perhaps the most formidable challenge of the entire project.”Altman has a pattern of making idealistic promises that shift over time. He founded OpenAI as a nonprofit in 2015, with a mission to develop AGI safely and for the benefit of all humanity. To raise money, OpenAI restructured itself as a for-profit company in 2019, but with overall control still in the hands of its nonprofit board. Last year, Altman proposed yet another restructure—one which would dilute the board’s control and allow more profits to flow to shareholders. Why, I ask, should the public trust Tools for Humanity’s commitment to freely surrender influence and power? “I think you will just see the continued decentralization via the protocol,” he says. “The value here is going to live in the network, and the network will be owned and governed by a lot of people.” Altman talks less about universal basic income these days. He recently mused about an alternative, which he called “universal basic compute.” Instead of AI companies redistributing their profits, he seemed to suggest, they could instead give everyone in the world fair access to super-powerful AI. Blania tells me he recently “made the decision to stop talking” about UBI at Tools for Humanity. “UBI is one potential answer,” he says. “Just givingaccess to the latestmodels and having them learn faster and better is another.” Says Altman: “I still don’t know what the right answer is. I believe we should do a better job of distribution of resources than we currently do.” When I probe the question of why people should trust him, Altman gets irritated. “I understand that you hate AI, and that’s fine,” he says. “If you want to frame it as the downside of AI is that there’s going to be a proliferation of very convincing AI systems that are pretending to be human, and we need ways to know what is really human-authorized versus not, then yeah, I think you can call that a downside of AI. It’s not how I would naturally frame it.” The phrase human-authorized hints at a tension between World ID and OpenAI’s plans for AI agents. An Internet where a World ID is required to access most services might impede the usefulness of the agents that OpenAI and others are developing. So Tools for Humanity is building a system that would allow users to delegate their World ID to an agent, allowing the bot to take actions online on their behalf, according to Tiago Sada, the company’s chief product officer. “We’ve built everything in a way that can be very easily delegatable to an agent,” Sada says. It’s a measure that would allow humans to be held accountable for the actions of their AIs. But it suggests that Tools for Humanity’s mission may be shifting beyond simply proving humanity, and toward becoming the infrastructure that enables AI agents to proliferate with human authorization. World ID doesn’t tell you whether a piece of content is AI-generated or human-generated; all it tells you is whether the account that posted it is a human or a bot. Even in a world where everybody had a World ID, our online spaces might still be filled with AI-generated text, images, and videos.As I say goodbye to Altman, I’m left feeling conflicted about his project. If the Internet is going to be transformed by AI agents, then some kind of proof-of-humanity system will almost certainly be necessary. Yet if the Orb becomes a piece of Internet infrastructure, it could give Altman—a beneficiary of the proliferation of AI content—significant influence over a leading defense mechanism against it. People might have no choice but to participate in the network in order to access social media or online services.I thought of an encounter I witnessed in Seoul. In the room above the restaurant, Cho Jeong-yeon, 75, watched her friend get verified by an Orb. Cho had been invited to do the same, but demurred. The reward wasn’t enough for her to surrender a part of her identity. “Your iris is uniquely yours, and we don’t really know how it might be used,” she says. “Seeing the machine made me think: are we becoming machines instead of humans now? Everything is changing, and we don’t know how it’ll all turn out.”—With reporting by Stephen Kim/Seoul. This story was supported by Tarbell Grants.Correction, May 30The original version of this story misstated the market capitalization of Worldcoin if all coins were in circulation. It is billion, not billion. #orb #will #see #you #now
    TIME.COM
    The Orb Will See You Now
    Once again, Sam Altman wants to show you the future. The CEO of OpenAI is standing on a sparse stage in San Francisco, preparing to reveal his next move to an attentive crowd. “We needed some way for identifying, authenticating humans in the age of AGI,” Altman explains, referring to artificial general intelligence. “We wanted a way to make sure that humans stayed special and central.” The solution Altman came up with is looming behind him. It’s a white sphere about the size of a beach ball, with a camera at its center. The company that makes it, known as Tools for Humanity, calls this mysterious device the Orb. Stare into the heart of the plastic-and-silicon globe and it will map the unique furrows and ciliary zones of your iris. Seconds later, you’ll receive inviolable proof of your humanity: a 12,800-digit binary number, known as an iris code, sent to an app on your phone. At the same time, a packet of cryptocurrency called Worldcoin, worth approximately $42, will be transferred to your digital wallet—your reward for becoming a “verified human.” Altman co-founded Tools for Humanity in 2019 as part of a suite of companies he believed would reshape the world. Once the tech he was developing at OpenAI passed a certain level of intelligence, he reasoned, it would mark the end of one era on the Internet and the beginning of another, in which AI became so advanced, so human-like, that you would no longer be able to tell whether what you read, saw, or heard online came from a real person. When that happened, Altman imagined, we would need a new kind of online infrastructure: a human-verification layer for the Internet, to distinguish real people from the proliferating number of bots and AI “agents.”And so Tools for Humanity set out to build a global “proof-of-humanity” network. It aims to verify 50 million people by the end of 2025; ultimately its goal is to sign up every single human being on the planet. The free crypto serves as both an incentive for users to sign up, and also an entry point into what the company hopes will become the world’s largest financial network, through which it believes “double-digit percentages of the global economy” will eventually flow. Even for Altman, these missions are audacious. “If this really works, it’s like a fundamental piece of infrastructure for the world,” Altman tells TIME in a video interview from the passenger seat of a car a few days before his April 30 keynote address.Internal hardware of the Orb in mid-assembly in March. Davide Monteleone for TIMEThe project’s goal is to solve a problem partly of Altman’s own making. In the near future, he and other tech leaders say, advanced AIs will be imbued with agency: the ability to not just respond to human prompting, but to take actions independently in the world. This will enable the creation of AI coworkers that can drop into your company and begin solving problems; AI tutors that can adapt their teaching style to students’ preferences; even AI doctors that can diagnose routine cases and handle scheduling or logistics. The arrival of these virtual agents, their venture capitalist backers predict, will turbocharge our productivity and unleash an age of material abundance.But AI agents will also have cascading consequences for the human experience online. “As AI systems become harder to distinguish from people, websites may face difficult trade-offs,” says a recent paper by researchers from 25 different universities, nonprofits, and tech companies, including OpenAI. “There is a significant risk that digital institutions will be unprepared for a time when AI-powered agents, including those leveraged by malicious actors, overwhelm other activity online.” On social-media platforms like X and Facebook, bot-driven accounts are amassing billions of views on AI-generated content. In April, the foundation that runs Wikipedia disclosed that AI bots scraping their site were making the encyclopedia too costly to sustainably run. Later the same month, researchers from the University of Zurich found that AI-generated comments on the subreddit /r/ChangeMyView were up to six times more successful than human-written ones at persuading unknowing users to change their minds.  Photograph by Davide Monteleone for TIMEBuy a copy of the Orb issue hereThe arrival of agents won’t only threaten our ability to distinguish between authentic and AI content online. It will also challenge the Internet’s core business model, online advertising, which relies on the assumption that ads are being viewed by humans. “The Internet will change very drastically sometime in the next 12 to 24 months,” says Tools for Humanity CEO Alex Blania. “So we have to succeed, or I’m not sure what else would happen.”For four years, Blania’s team has been testing the Orb’s hardware abroad. Now the U.S. rollout has arrived. Over the next 12 months, 7,500 Orbs will be arriving in dozens of American cities, in locations like gas stations, bodegas, and flagship stores in Los Angeles, Austin, and Miami. The project’s founders and fans hope the Orb’s U.S. debut will kickstart a new phase of growth. The San Francisco keynote was titled: “At Last.” It’s not clear the public appetite matches the exultant branding. Tools for Humanity has “verified” just 12 million humans since mid 2023, a pace Blania concedes is well behind schedule. Few online platforms currently support the so-called “World ID” that the Orb bestows upon its visitors, leaving little to entice users to give up their biometrics beyond the lure of free crypto. Even Altman isn’t sure whether the whole thing can work. “I can see [how] this becomes a fairly mainstream thing in a few years,” he says. “Or I can see that it’s still only used by a small subset of people who think about the world in a certain way.” Blania (left) and Altman debut the Orb at World’s U.S. launch in San Francisco on April 30, 2025. Jason Henry—The New York Times/ReduxYet as the Internet becomes overrun with AI, the creators of this strange new piece of hardware are betting that everybody in the world will soon want—or need—to visit an Orb. The biometric code it creates, they predict, will become a new type of digital passport, without which you might be denied passage to the Internet of the future, from dating apps to government services. In a best-case scenario, World ID could be a privacy-preserving way to fortify the Internet against an AI-driven deluge of fake or deceptive content. It could also enable the distribution of universal basic income (UBI)—a policy that Altman has previously touted—as AI automation transforms the global economy. To examine what this new technology might mean, I reported from three continents, interviewed 10 Tools for Humanity executives and investors, reviewed hundreds of pages of company documents, and “verified” my own humanity. The Internet will inevitably need some kind of proof-of-humanity system in the near future, says Divya Siddarth, founder of the nonprofit Collective Intelligence Project. The real question, she argues, is whether such a system will be centralized—“a big security nightmare that enables a lot of surveillance”—or privacy-preserving, as the Orb claims to be. Questions remain about Tools for Humanity’s corporate structure, its yoking to an unstable cryptocurrency, and what power it would concentrate in the hands of its owners if successful. Yet it’s also one of the only attempts to solve what many see as an increasingly urgent problem. “There are some issues with it,” Siddarth says of World ID. “But you can’t preserve the Internet in amber. Something in this direction is necessary.”In March, I met Blania at Tools for Humanity’s San Francisco headquarters, where a large screen displays the number of weekly “Orb verifications” by country. A few days earlier, the CEO had attended a $1 million-per-head dinner at Mar-a-Lago with President Donald Trump, whom he credits with clearing the way for the company’s U.S. launch by relaxing crypto regulations. “Given Sam is a very high profile target,” Blania says, “we just decided that we would let other companies fight that fight, and enter the U.S. once the air is clear.” As a kid growing up in Germany, Blania was a little different than his peers. “Other kids were, like, drinking a lot, or doing a lot of parties, and I was just building a lot of things that could potentially blow up,” he recalls. At the California Institute of Technology, where he was pursuing research for a masters degree, he spent many evenings reading the blogs of startup gurus like Paul Graham and Altman. Then, in 2019, Blania received an email from Max Novendstern, an entrepreneur who had been kicking around a concept with Altman to build a global cryptocurrency network. They were looking for technical minds to help with the project. Over cappuccinos, Altman told Blania he was certain about three things. First, smarter-than-human AI was not only possible, but inevitable—and it would soon mean you could no longer assume that anything you read, saw, or heard on the Internet was human-created. Second, cryptocurrency and other decentralized technologies would be a massive force for change in the world. And third, scale was essential to any crypto network’s value. The Orb is tested on a calibration rig, surrounded by checkerboard targets to ensure precision in iris detection. Davide Monteleone for TIMEThe goal of Worldcoin, as the project was initially called, was to combine those three insights. Altman took a lesson from PayPal, the company co-founded by his mentor Peter Thiel. Of its initial funding, PayPal spent less than $10 million actually building its app—but pumped an additional $70 million or so into a referral program, whereby new users and the person who invited them would each receive $10 in credit. The referral program helped make PayPal a leading payment platform. Altman thought a version of that strategy would propel Worldcoin to similar heights. He wanted to create a new cryptocurrency and give it to users as a reward for signing up. The more people who joined the system, the higher the token’s value would theoretically rise. Since 2019, the project has raised $244 million from investors like Coinbase and the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz. That money paid for the $50 million cost of designing the Orb, plus maintaining the software it runs on. The total market value of all Worldcoins in existence, however, is far higher—around $12 billion. That number is a bit misleading: most of those coins are not in circulation and Worldcoin’s price has fluctuated wildly. Still, it allows the company to reward users for signing up at no cost to itself. The main lure for investors is the crypto upside. Some 75% of all Worldcoins are set aside for humans to claim when they sign up, or as referral bonuses. The remaining 25% are split between Tools for Humanity’s backers and staff, including Blania and Altman. “I’m really excited to make a lot of money,” ” Blania says.From the beginning, Altman was thinking about the consequences of the AI revolution he intended to unleash. (On May 21, he announced plans to team up with famed former Apple designer Jony Ive on a new AI personal device.) A future in which advanced AI could perform most tasks more effectively than humans would bring a wave of unemployment and economic dislocation, he reasoned. Some kind of wealth redistribution might be necessary. In 2016, he partially funded a study of basic income, which gave $1,000 per-month handouts to low-income individuals in Illinois and Texas. But there was no single financial system that would allow money to be sent to everybody in the world. Nor was there a way to stop an individual human from claiming their share twice—or to identify a sophisticated AI pretending to be human and pocketing some cash of its own. In 2023, Tools for Humanity raised the possibility of using the network to redistribute the profits of AI labs that were able to automate human labor. “As AI advances,” it said, “fairly distributing access and some of the created value through UBI will play an increasingly vital role in counteracting the concentration of economic power.”Blania was taken by the pitch, and agreed to join the project as a co-founder. “Most people told us we were very stupid or crazy or insane, including Silicon Valley investors,” Blania says. At least until ChatGPT came out in 2022, transforming OpenAI into one of the world’s most famous tech companies and kickstarting a market bull-run. “Things suddenly started to make more and more sense to the external world,” Blania says of the vision to develop a global “proof-of-humanity” network. “You have to imagine a world in which you will have very smart and competent systems somehow flying through the Internet with different goals and ideas of what they want to do, and us having no idea anymore what we’re dealing with.”After our interview, Blania’s head of communications ushers me over to a circular wooden structure where eight Orbs face one another. The scene feels like a cross between an Apple Store and a ceremonial altar. “Do you want to get verified?” she asks. Putting aside my reservations for the purposes of research, I download the World App and follow its prompts. I flash a QR code at the Orb, then gaze into it. A minute or so later, my phone buzzes with confirmation: I’ve been issued my own personal World ID and some Worldcoin.The first thing the Orb does is check if you’re human, using a neural network that takes input from various sensors, including an infrared camera and a thermometer. Davide Monteleone for TIMEWhile I stared into the Orb, several complex procedures had taken place at once. A neural network took inputs from multiple sensors—an infrared camera, a thermometer—to confirm I was a living human. Simultaneously, a telephoto lens zoomed in on my iris, capturing the physical traits within that distinguish me from every other human on Earth. It then converted that image into an iris code: a numerical abstraction of my unique biometric data. Then the Orb checked to see if my iris code matched any it had seen before, using a technique allowing encrypted data to be compared without revealing the underlying information. Before the Orb deleted my data, it turned my iris code into several derivative codes—none of which on its own can be linked back to the original—encrypted them, deleted the only copies of the decryption keys, and sent each one to a different secure server, so that future users’ iris codes can be checked for uniqueness against mine. If I were to use my World ID to access a website, that site would learn nothing about me except that I’m human. The Orb is open-source, so outside experts can examine its code and verify the company’s privacy claims. “I did a colonoscopy on this company and these technologies before I agreed to join,” says Trevor Traina, a Trump donor and former U.S. ambassador to Austria who now serves as Tools for Humanity’s chief business officer. “It is the most privacy-preserving technology on the planet.”Only weeks later, when researching what would happen if I wanted to delete my data, do I discover that Tools for Humanity’s privacy claims rest on what feels like a sleight of hand. The company argues that in modifying your iris code, it has “effectively anonymized” your biometric data. If you ask Tools for Humanity to delete your iris codes, they will delete the one stored on your phone, but not the derivatives. Those, they argue, are no longer your personal data at all. But if I were to return to an Orb after deleting my data, it would still recognize those codes as uniquely mine. Once you look into the Orb, a piece of your identity remains in the system forever. If users could truly delete that data, the premise of one ID per human would collapse, Tools for Humanity’s chief privacy officer Damien Kieran tells me when I call seeking an explanation. People could delete and sign up for new World IDs after being suspended from a platform. Or claim their Worldcoin tokens, sell them, delete their data, and cash in again. This argument fell flat with European Union regulators in Germany, who recently declared that the Orb posed “fundamental data protection issues” and ordered the company to allow European users to fully delete even their anonymized data. (Tools for Humanity has appealed; the regulator is now reassessing the decision.) “Just like any other technology service, users cannot delete data that is not personal data,” Kieran said in a statement. “If a person could delete anonymized data that can’t be linked to them by World or any third party, it would allow bad actors to circumvent the security and safety that World ID is working to bring to every human.”On a balmy afternoon this spring, I climb a flight of stairs up to a room above a restaurant in an outer suburb of Seoul. Five elderly South Koreans tap on their phones as they wait to be “verified” by the two Orbs in the center of the room. “We don’t really know how to distinguish between AI and humans anymore,” an attendant in a company t-shirt explains in Korean, gesturing toward the spheres. “We need a way to verify that we’re human and not AI. So how do we do that? Well, humans have irises, but AI doesn’t.”The attendant ushers an elderly woman over to an Orb. It bleeps. “Open your eyes,” a disembodied voice says in English. The woman stares into the camera. Seconds later, she checks her phone and sees that a packet of Worldcoin worth 75,000 Korean won (about $54) has landed in her digital wallet. Congratulations, the app tells her. You are now a verified human.A visitor views the Orbs in Seoul on April 14, 2025. Taemin Ha for TIMETools for Humanity aims to “verify” 1 million Koreans over the next year. Taemin Ha for TIMEA couple dozen Orbs have been available in South Korea since 2023, verifying roughly 55,000 people. Now Tools for Humanity is redoubling its efforts there. At an event in a traditional wooden hanok house in central Seoul, an executive announces that 250 Orbs will soon be dispersed around the country—with the aim of verifying 1 million Koreans in the next 12 months. South Korea has high levels of smartphone usage, crypto and AI adoption, and Internet access, while average wages are modest enough for the free Worldcoin on offer to still be an enticing draw—all of which makes it fertile testing ground for the company’s ambitious global expansion. Yet things seem off to a slow start. In a retail space I visited in central Seoul, Tools for Humanity had constructed a wooden structure with eight Orbs facing each other. Locals and tourists wander past looking bemused; few volunteer themselves up. Most who do tell me they are crypto enthusiasts who came intentionally, driven more by the spirit of early adoption than the free coins. The next day, I visit a coffee shop in central Seoul where a chrome Orb sits unassumingly in one corner. Wu Ruijun, a 20-year-old student from China, strikes up a conversation with the barista, who doubles as the Orb’s operator. Wu was invited here by a friend who said both could claim free cryptocurrency if he signed up. The barista speeds him through the process. Wu accepts the privacy disclosure without reading it, and widens his eyes for the Orb. Soon he’s verified. “I wasn’t told anything about the privacy policy,” he says on his way out. “I just came for the money.”As Altman’s car winds through San Francisco, I ask about the vision he laid out in 2019: that AI would make it harder for us to trust each other online. To my surprise, he rejects the framing. “I’m much more [about] like: what is the good we can create, rather than the bad we can stop?” he says. “It’s not like, ‘Oh, we’ve got to avoid the bot overrun’ or whatever. It’s just that we can do a lot of special things for humans.” It’s an answer that may reflect how his role has changed over the years. Altman is now the chief public cheerleader of a $300 billion company that’s touting the transformative utility of AI agents. The rise of agents, he and others say, will be a boon for our quality of life—like having an assistant on hand who can answer your most pressing questions, carry out mundane tasks, and help you develop new skills. It’s an optimistic vision that may well pan out. But it doesn’t quite fit with the prophecies of AI-enabled infopocalypse that Tools for Humanity was founded upon.Altman waves away a question about the influence he and other investors stand to gain if their vision is realized. Most holders, he assumes, will have already started selling their tokens—too early, he adds. “What I think would be bad is if an early crew had a lot of control over the protocol,” he says, “and that’s where I think the commitment to decentralization is so cool.” Altman is referring to the World Protocol, the underlying technology upon which the Orb, Worldcoin, and World ID all rely. Tools for Humanity is developing it, but has committed to giving control to its users over time—a process they say will prevent power from being concentrated in the hands of a few executives or investors. Tools for Humanity would remain a for-profit company, and could levy fees on platforms that use World ID, but other companies would be able to compete for customers by building alternative apps—or even alternative Orbs. The plan draws on ideas that animated the crypto ecosystem in the late 2010s and early 2020s, when evangelists for emerging blockchain technologies argued that the centralization of power—especially in large so-called “Web 2.0” tech companies—was responsible for many of the problems plaguing the modern Internet. Just as decentralized cryptocurrencies could reform a financial system controlled by economic elites, so too would it be possible to create decentralized organizations, run by their members instead of CEOs. How such a system might work in practice remains unclear. “Building a community-based governance system,” Tools for Humanity says in a 2023 white paper, “represents perhaps the most formidable challenge of the entire project.”Altman has a pattern of making idealistic promises that shift over time. He founded OpenAI as a nonprofit in 2015, with a mission to develop AGI safely and for the benefit of all humanity. To raise money, OpenAI restructured itself as a for-profit company in 2019, but with overall control still in the hands of its nonprofit board. Last year, Altman proposed yet another restructure—one which would dilute the board’s control and allow more profits to flow to shareholders. Why, I ask, should the public trust Tools for Humanity’s commitment to freely surrender influence and power? “I think you will just see the continued decentralization via the protocol,” he says. “The value here is going to live in the network, and the network will be owned and governed by a lot of people.” Altman talks less about universal basic income these days. He recently mused about an alternative, which he called “universal basic compute.” Instead of AI companies redistributing their profits, he seemed to suggest, they could instead give everyone in the world fair access to super-powerful AI. Blania tells me he recently “made the decision to stop talking” about UBI at Tools for Humanity. “UBI is one potential answer,” he says. “Just giving [people] access to the latest [AI] models and having them learn faster and better is another.” Says Altman: “I still don’t know what the right answer is. I believe we should do a better job of distribution of resources than we currently do.” When I probe the question of why people should trust him, Altman gets irritated. “I understand that you hate AI, and that’s fine,” he says. “If you want to frame it as the downside of AI is that there’s going to be a proliferation of very convincing AI systems that are pretending to be human, and we need ways to know what is really human-authorized versus not, then yeah, I think you can call that a downside of AI. It’s not how I would naturally frame it.” The phrase human-authorized hints at a tension between World ID and OpenAI’s plans for AI agents. An Internet where a World ID is required to access most services might impede the usefulness of the agents that OpenAI and others are developing. So Tools for Humanity is building a system that would allow users to delegate their World ID to an agent, allowing the bot to take actions online on their behalf, according to Tiago Sada, the company’s chief product officer. “We’ve built everything in a way that can be very easily delegatable to an agent,” Sada says. It’s a measure that would allow humans to be held accountable for the actions of their AIs. But it suggests that Tools for Humanity’s mission may be shifting beyond simply proving humanity, and toward becoming the infrastructure that enables AI agents to proliferate with human authorization. World ID doesn’t tell you whether a piece of content is AI-generated or human-generated; all it tells you is whether the account that posted it is a human or a bot. Even in a world where everybody had a World ID, our online spaces might still be filled with AI-generated text, images, and videos.As I say goodbye to Altman, I’m left feeling conflicted about his project. If the Internet is going to be transformed by AI agents, then some kind of proof-of-humanity system will almost certainly be necessary. Yet if the Orb becomes a piece of Internet infrastructure, it could give Altman—a beneficiary of the proliferation of AI content—significant influence over a leading defense mechanism against it. People might have no choice but to participate in the network in order to access social media or online services.I thought of an encounter I witnessed in Seoul. In the room above the restaurant, Cho Jeong-yeon, 75, watched her friend get verified by an Orb. Cho had been invited to do the same, but demurred. The reward wasn’t enough for her to surrender a part of her identity. “Your iris is uniquely yours, and we don’t really know how it might be used,” she says. “Seeing the machine made me think: are we becoming machines instead of humans now? Everything is changing, and we don’t know how it’ll all turn out.”—With reporting by Stephen Kim/Seoul. This story was supported by Tarbell Grants.Correction, May 30The original version of this story misstated the market capitalization of Worldcoin if all coins were in circulation. It is $12 billion, not $1.2 billion.
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    240
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos 0 Anterior
  • Insites: Addressing the Northern housing crisis

    The housing crisis in Canada’s North, which has particularly affected the majority Indigenous population in northern communities, has been of ongoing concern to firms such as Taylor Architecture Group. Formerly known as Pin/Taylor, the firm was established in Yellowknife in 1983. TAG’s Principal, Simon Taylor, says that despite recent political gains for First Nations, “by and large, life is not improving up here.”
    Taylor and his colleagues have designed many different types of housing across the North. But the problems exceed the normal scope of architectural practice. TAG’s Manager of Research and Development, Kristel Derkowski, says, “We can design the units well, but it doesn’t solve many of the underlying problems.” To respond, she says, “we’ve backed up the process to look at the root causes more.” As a result, “the design challenges are informed by much broader systemic research.” 
    We spoke to Derkowski about her research, and the work that Taylor Architecture Group is doing to act on it. Here’s what she has to say.
    Inadequate housing from the start
    The Northwest Territories is about 51% Indigenous. Most non-Indigenous people are concentrated in the capital city of Yellowknife. Outside of Yellowknife, the territory is very much majority Indigenous. 
    The federal government got involved in delivering housing to the far North in 1959. There were problems with this program right from the beginning. One issue was that when the houses were first delivered, they were designed and fabricated down south, and they were completely inadequate for the climate. The houses from that initial program were called “Matchbox houses” because they were so small. These early stages of housing delivery helped establish the precedent that a lower standard of housing was acceptable for northern Indigenous residents compared to Euro-Canadian residents elsewhere. In many cases, that double-standard persists to this day.
    The houses were also inappropriately designed for northern cultures. It’s been said in the research that the way that these houses were delivered to northern settlements was a significant factor in people being divorced from their traditional lifestyles, their traditional hierarchies, the way that they understood home. It was imposing a Euro-Canadian model on Indigenous communities and their ways of life. 
    Part of what the federal government was trying to do was to impose a cash economy and stimulate a market. They were delivering houses and asking for rent. But there weren’t a lot of opportunities to earn cash. This housing was delivered around the sites of former fur trading posts—but the fur trade had collapsed by 1930. There weren’t a lot of jobs. There wasn’t a lot of wage-based employment. And yet, rental payments were being collected in cash, and the rental payments increased significantly over the span of a couple decades. 
    The imposition of a cash economy created problems culturally. It’s been said that public housing delivery, in combination with other social policies, served to introduce the concept of poverty in the far North, where it hadn’t existed before. These policies created a situation where Indigenous northerners couldn’t afford to be adequately housed, because housing demanded cash, and cash wasn’t always available. That’s a big theme that continues to persist today. Most of the territory’s communities remain “non-market”: there is no housing market. There are different kinds of economies in the North—and not all of them revolve wholly around cash. And yet government policies do. The governments’ ideas about housing do, too. So there’s a conflict there. 
    The federal exit from social housing
    After 1969, the federal government devolved housing to the territorial government. The Government of Northwest Territories created the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation. By 1974, the housing corporation took over all the stock of federal housing and started to administer it, in addition to building their own. The housing corporation was rapidly building new housing stock from 1975 up until the mid-1990s. But beginning in the early 1990s, the federal government terminated federal spending on new social housing across the whole country. A couple of years after that, they also decided to allow operational agreements with social housing providers to expire. It didn’t happen that quickly—and maybe not everybody noticed, because it wasn’t a drastic change where all operational funding disappeared immediately. But at that time, the federal government was in 25- to 50-year operational agreements with various housing providers across the country. After 1995, these long-term operating agreements were no longer being renewed—not just in the North, but everywhere in Canada. 
    With the housing corporation up here, that change started in 1996, and we have until 2038 before the federal contribution of operational funding reaches zero. As a result, beginning in 1996, the number of units owned by the NWT Housing Corporation plateaued. There was a little bump in housing stock after that—another 200 units or so in the early 2000s. But basically, the Northwest Territories was stuck for 25 years, from 1996 to 2021, with the same number of public housing units.
    In 1990, there was a report on housing in the NWT that was funded by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. That report noted that housing was already in a crisis state. At that time, in 1990, researchers said it would take 30 more years to meet existing housing need, if housing production continued at the current rate. The other problem is that houses were so inadequately constructed to begin with, that they generally needed replacement after 15 years. So housing in the Northwest Territories already had serious problems in 1990. Then in 1996, the housing corporation stopped building more. So if you compare the total number of social housing units with the total need for subsidized housing in the territory, you can see a severely widening gap in recent decades. We’ve seen a serious escalation in housing need.
    The Northwest Territories has a very, very small tax base, and it’s extremely expensive to provide services here. Most of our funding for public services comes from the federal government. The NWT on its own does not have a lot of buying power. So ever since the federal government stopped providing operational funding for housing, the territorial government has been hard-pressed to replace that funding with its own internal resources.
    I should probably note that this wasn’t only a problem for the Northwest Territories. Across Canada, we have seen mass homelessness visibly emerge since the ’90s. This is related, at least in part, to the federal government’s decisions to terminate funding for social housing at that time.

    Today’s housing crisis
    Getting to present-day conditions in the NWT, we now have some “market” communities and some “non-market” communities. There are 33 communities total in the NWT, and at least 27 of these don’t have a housing market: there’s no private rental market and there’s no resale market. This relates back to the conflict I mentioned before: the cash economy did not entirely take root. In simple terms, there isn’t enough local employment or income opportunity for a housing market—in conventional terms—to work. 
    Yellowknife is an outlier in the territory. Economic opportunity is concentrated in the capital city. We also have five other “market” communities that are regional centres for the territorial government, where more employment and economic activity take place. Across the non-market communities, on average, the rate of unsuitable or inadequate housing is about five times what it is elsewhere in Canada. Rates of unemployment are about five times what they are in Yellowknife. On top of this, the communities with the highest concentration of Indigenous residents also have the highest rates of unsuitable or inadequate housing, and also have the lowest income opportunity. These statistics clearly show that the inequalities in the territory are highly racialized. 
    Given the situation in non-market communities, there is a severe affordability crisis in terms of the cost to deliver housing. It’s very, very expensive to build housing here. A single detached home costs over a million dollars to build in a place like Fort Good Hope. We’re talking about a very modest three-bedroom house, smaller than what you’d typically build in the South. The million-dollar price tag on each house is a serious issue. Meanwhile, in a non-market community, the potential resale value is extremely low. So there’s a massive gap between the cost of construction and the value of the home once built—and that’s why you have no housing market. It means that private development is impossible. That’s why, until recently, only the federal and territorial governments have been building new homes in non-market communities. It’s so expensive to do, and as soon as the house is built, its value plummets. 

    The costs of living are also very high. According to the NWT Bureau of Statistics, the estimated living costs for an individual in Fort Good Hope are about 1.8 times what it costs to live in Edmonton. Then when it comes to housing specifically, there are further issues with operations and maintenance. The NWT is not tied into the North American hydro grid, and in most communities, electricity is produced by a diesel generator. This is extremely expensive. Everything needs to be shipped in, including fuel. So costs for heating fuel are high as well, as are the heating loads. Then, maintenance and repairs can be very difficult, and of course, very costly. If you need any specialized parts or specialized labour, you are flying those parts and those people in from down South. So to take on the costs of homeownership, on top of the costs of living—in a place where income opportunity is limited to begin with—this is extremely challenging. And from a statistical or systemic perspective, this is simply not in reach for most community members.
    In 2021, the NWT Housing Corporation underwent a strategic renewal and became Housing Northwest Territories. Their mandate went into a kind of flux. They started to pivot from being the primary landlord in the territory towards being a partner to other third-party housing providers, which might be Indigenous governments, community housing providers, nonprofits, municipalities. But those other organisations, in most cases, aren’t equipped or haven’t stepped forward to take on social housing.
    Even though the federal government is releasing capital funding for affordable housing again, northern communities can’t always capitalize on that, because the source of funding for operations remains in question. Housing in non-market communities essentially needs to be subsidized—not just in terms of construction, but also in terms of operations. But that operational funding is no longer available. I can’t stress enough how critical this issue is for the North.
    Fort Good Hope and “one thing thatworked”
    I’ll talk a bit about Fort Good Hope. I don’t want to be speaking on behalf of the community here, but I will share a bit about the realities on the ground, as a way of putting things into context. 
    Fort Good Hope, or Rádeyı̨lı̨kóé, is on the Mackenzie River, close to the Arctic Circle. There’s a winter road that’s open at best from January until March—the window is getting narrower because of climate change. There were also barges running each summer for material transportation, but those have been cancelled for the past two years because of droughts linked to climate change. Aside from that, it’s a fly-in community. It’s very remote. It has about 500-600 people. According to census data, less than half of those people live in what’s considered acceptable housing. 
    The biggest problem is housing adequacy. That’s CMHC’s term for housing in need of major repairs. This applies to about 36% of households in Fort Good Hope. In terms of ownership, almost 40% of the community’s housing stock is managed by Housing NWT. That’s a combination of public housing units and market housing units—which are for professionals like teachers and nurses. There’s also a pretty high percentage of owner-occupied units—about 46%. 
    The story told by the community is that when public housing arrived in the 1960s, the people were living in owner-built log homes. Federal agents arrived and they considered some of those homes to be inadequate or unacceptable, and they bulldozed those homes, then replaced some of them—but maybe not all—with public housing units. Then residents had no choice but to rent from the people who took their homes away. This was not a good way to start up a public housing system.
    The state of housing in Fort Good Hope
    Then there was an issue with the rental rates, which drastically increased over time. During a presentation to a government committee in the ’80s, a community member explained that they had initially accepted a place in public housing for a rental fee of a month in 1971. By 1984, the same community member was expected to pay a month. That might not sound like much in today’s terms, but it was roughly a 13,000% increase for that same tenant—and it’s not like they had any other housing options to choose from. So by that point, they’re stuck with paying whatever is asked. 
    On top of that, the housing units were poorly built and rapidly deteriorated. One description from that era said the walls were four inches thick, with windows oriented north, and water tanks that froze in the winter and fell through the floor. The single heating source was right next to the only door—residents were concerned about the fire hazard that obviously created. Ultimately the community said: “We don’t actually want any more public housing units. We want to go back to homeownership, which was what we had before.” 
    So Fort Good Hope was a leader in housing at that time and continues to be to this day. The community approached the territorial government and made a proposal: “Give us the block funding for home construction, we’ll administer it ourselves, we’ll help people build houses, and they can keep them.” That actually worked really well. That was the start of the Homeownership Assistance Programthat ran for about ten years, beginning in 1982. The program expanded across the whole territory after it was piloted in Fort Good Hope. The HAP is still spoken about and written about as the one thing that kind of worked. 
    Self-built log cabins remain from Fort Good Hope’s 1980s Homeownership Program.
    Funding was cost-shared between the federal and territorial governments. Through the program, material packages were purchased for clients who were deemed eligible. The client would then contribute their own sweat equity in the form of hauling logs and putting in time on site. They had two years to finish building the house. Then, as long as they lived in that home for five more years, the loan would be forgiven, and they would continue owning the house with no ongoing loan payments. In some cases, there were no mechanical systems provided as part of this package, but the residents would add to the house over the years. A lot of these units are still standing and still lived in today. Many of them are comparatively well-maintained in contrast with other types of housing—for example, public housing units. It’s also worth noting that the one-time cost of the materials package was—from the government’s perspective—only a fraction of the cost to build and maintain a public housing unit over its lifespan. At the time, it cost about to to build a HAP home, whereas the lifetime cost of a public housing unit is in the order of This program was considered very successful in many places, especially in Fort Good Hope. It created about 40% of their local housing stock at that time, which went from about 100 units to about 140. It’s a small community, so that’s quite significant. 
    What were the successful principles?

    The community-based decision-making power to allocate the funding.
    The sweat equity component, which brought homeownership within the range of being attainable for people—because there wasn’t cash needing to be transferred, when the cash wasn’t available.
    Local materials—they harvested the logs from the land, and the fact that residents could maintain the homes themselves.

    The Fort Good Hope Construction Centre. Rendering by Taylor Architecture Group
    The Fort Good Hope Construction Centre
    The HAP ended the same year that the federal government terminated new spending on social housing. By the late 1990s, the creation of new public housing stock or new homeownership units had gone down to negligible levels. But more recently, things started to change. The federal government started to release money to build affordable housing. Simultaneously, Indigenous governments are working towards Self-Government and settling their Land Claims. Federal funds have started to flow directly to Indigenous groups. Given these changes, the landscape of Northern housing has started to evolve.
    In 2016, Fort Good Hope created the K’asho Got’ine Housing Society, based on the precedent of the 1980s Fort Good Hope Housing Society. They said: “We did this before, maybe we can do it again.” The community incorporated a non-profit and came up with a five-year plan to meet housing need in their community.
    One thing the community did right away was start up a crew to deliver housing maintenance and repairs. This is being run by Ne’Rahten Developments Ltd., which is the business arm of Yamoga Land Corporation. Over the span of a few years, they built up a crew of skilled workers. Then Ne’Rahten started thinking, “Why can’t we do more? Why can’t we build our own housing?” They identified a need for a space where people could work year-round, and first get training, then employment, in a stable all-season environment.
    This was the initial vision for the Fort Good Hope Construction Centre, and this is where TAG got involved. We had some seed funding through the CMHC Housing Supply Challenge when we partnered with Fort Good Hope.
    We worked with the community for over a year to get the capital funding lined up for the project. This process required us to take on a different role than the one you typically would as an architect. It wasn’t just schematic-design-to-construction-administration. One thing we did pretty early on was a housing design workshop that was open to the whole community, to start understanding what type of housing people would really want to see. Another piece was a lot of outreach and advocacy to build up support for the project and partnerships—for example, with Housing Northwest Territories and Aurora College. We also reached out to our federal MP, the NWT Legislative Assembly and different MLAs, and we talked to a lot of different people about the link between employment and housing. The idea was that the Fort Good Hope Construction Centre would be a demonstration project. Ultimately, funding did come through for the project—from both CMHC and National Indigenous Housing Collaborative Inc.
    The facility itself will not be architecturally spectacular. It’s basically a big shed where you could build a modular house. But the idea is that the construction of those houses is combined with training, and it creates year-round indoor jobs. It intends to combat the short construction seasons, and the fact that people would otherwise be laid off between projects—which makes it very hard to progress with your training or your career. At the same time, the Construction Centre will build up a skilled labour force that otherwise wouldn’t exist—because when there’s no work, skilled people tend to leave the community. And, importantly, the idea is to keep capital funding in the community. So when there’s a new arena that needs to get built, when there’s a new school that needs to get built, you have a crew of people who are ready to take that on. Rather than flying in skilled labourers, you actually have the community doing it themselves. It’s working towards self-determination in housing too, because if those modular housing units are being built in the community, by community members, then eventually they’re taking over design decisions and decisions about maintenance—in a way that hasn’t really happened for decades.
    Transitional homeownership
    My research also looked at a transitional homeownership model that adapts some of the successful principles of the 1980s HAP. Right now, in non-market communities, there are serious gaps in the housing continuum—that is, the different types of housing options available to people. For the most part, you have public housing, and you have homelessness—mostly in the form of hidden homelessness, where people are sleeping on the couches of relatives. Then, in some cases, you have inherited homeownership—where people got homes through the HAP or some other government program.
    But for the most part, not a lot of people in non-market communities are actually moving into homeownership anymore. I asked the local housing manager in Fort Good Hope: “When’s the last time someone built a house in the community?” She said, “I can only think of one person. It was probably about 20 years ago, and that person actually went to the bank and got a mortgage. If people have a home, it’s usually inherited from their parents or from relatives.” And that situation is a bit of a problem in itself, because it means that people can’t move out of public housing. Public housing traps you in a lot of ways. For example, it punishes employment, because rent is geared to income. It’s been said many times that this model disincentivizes employment. I was in a workshop last year where an Indigenous person spoke up and said, “Actually, it’s not disincentivizing, it punishes employment. It takes things away from you.”
    Somebody at the territorial housing corporation in Yellowknife told me, “We have clients who are over the income threshold for public housing, but there’s nowhere else they can go.” Theoretically, they would go to the private housing market, they would go to market housing, or they would go to homeownership, but those options don’t exist or they aren’t within reach. 
    So the idea with the transitional homeownership model is to create an option that could allow the highest income earners in a non-market community to move towards homeownership. This could take some pressure off the public housing system. And it would almost be like a wealth distribution measure: people who are able to afford the cost of operating and maintaining a home then have that option, instead of remaining in government-subsidized housing. For those who cannot, the public housing system is still an option—and maybe a few more public housing units are freed up. 
    I’ve developed about 36 recommendations for a transitional homeownership model in northern non-market communities. The recommendations are meant to be actioned at various scales: at the scale of the individual household, the scale of the housing provider, and the scale of the whole community. The idea is that if you look at housing as part of a whole system, then there are certain moves that might make sense here—in a non-market context especially—that wouldn’t make sense elsewhere. So for example, we’re in a situation where a house doesn’t appreciate in value. It’s not a financial asset, it’s actually a financial liability, and it’s something that costs a lot to maintain over the years. Giving someone a house in a non-market community is actually giving them a burden, but some residents would be quite willing to take this on, just to have an option of getting out of public housing. It just takes a shift in mindset to start considering solutions for that kind of context.
    One particularly interesting feature of non-market communities is that they’re still functioning with a mixed economy: partially a subsistence-based or traditional economy, and partially a cash economy. I think that’s actually a strength that hasn’t been tapped into by territorial and federal policies. In the far North, in-kind and traditional economies are still very much a way of life. People subsidize their groceries with “country food,” which means food that was harvested from the land. And instead of paying for fuel tank refills in cash, many households in non-market communities are burning wood as their primary heat source. In communities south of the treeline, like Fort Good Hope, that wood is also harvested from the land. Despite there being no exchange of cash involved, these are critical economic activities—and they are also part of a sustainable, resilient economy grounded in local resources and traditional skills.
    This concept of the mixed economy could be tapped into as part of a housing model, by bringing back the idea of a ‘sweat equity’ contribution instead of a down payment—just like in the HAP. Contributing time and labour is still an economic exchange, but it bypasses the ‘cash’ part—the part that’s still hard to come by in a non-market community. Labour doesn’t have to be manual labour, either. There are all kinds of work that need to take place in a community: maybe taking training courses and working on projects at the Construction Centre, maybe helping out at the Band Office, or providing childcare services for other working parents—and so on. So it could be more inclusive than a model that focuses on manual labour.
    Another thing to highlight is a rent-to-own trial period. Not every client will be equipped to take on the burdens of homeownership. So you can give people a trial period. If it doesn’t work out and they can’t pay for operations and maintenance, they could continue renting without losing their home.
    Then it’s worth touching on some basic design principles for the homeownership units. In the North, the solutions that work are often the simplest—not the most technologically innovative. When you’re in a remote location, specialized replacement parts and specialized labour are both difficult to come by. And new technologies aren’t always designed for extreme climates—especially as we trend towards the digital. So rather than installing technologically complex, high-efficiency systems, it actually makes more sense to build something that people are comfortable with, familiar with, and willing to maintain. In a southern context, people suggest solutions like solar panels to manage energy loads. But in the North, the best thing you can do for energy is put a woodstove in the house. That’s something we’ve heard loud and clear in many communities. Even if people can’t afford to fill their fuel tank, they’re still able to keep chopping wood—or their neighbour is, or their brother, or their kid, and so on. It’s just a different way of looking at things and a way of bringing things back down to earth, back within reach of community members. 
    Regulatory barriers to housing access: Revisiting the National Building Code
    On that note, there’s one more project I’ll touch on briefly. TAG is working on a research study, funded by Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada, which looks at regulatory barriers to housing access in the North. The National Building Codehas evolved largely to serve the southern market context, where constraints and resources are both very different than they are up here. Technical solutions in the NBC are based on assumptions that, in some cases, simply don’t apply in northern communities.
    Here’s a very simple example: minimum distance to a fire hydrant. Most of our communities don’t have fire hydrants at all. We don’t have municipal services. The closest hydrant might be thousands of kilometres away. So what do we do instead? We just have different constraints to consider.
    That’s just one example but there are many more. We are looking closely at the NBC, and we are also working with a couple of different communities in different situations. The idea is to identify where there are conflicts between what’s regulated and what’s actually feasible, viable, and practical when it comes to on-the-ground realities. Then we’ll look at some alternative solutions for housing. The idea is to meet the intent of the NBC, but arrive at some technical solutions that are more practical to build, easier to maintain, and more appropriate for northern communities. 
    All of the projects I’ve just described are fairly recent, and very much still ongoing. We’ll see how it all plays out. I’m sure we’re going to run into a lot of new barriers and learn a lot more on the way, but it’s an incremental trial-and-error process. Even with the Construction Centre, we’re saying that this is a demonstration project, but how—or if—it rolls out in other communities would be totally community-dependent, and it could look very, very different from place to place. 
    In doing any research on Northern housing, one of the consistent findings is that there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Northern communities are not all the same. There are all kinds of different governance structures, different climates, ground conditions, transportation routes, different population sizes, different people, different cultures. Communities are Dene, Métis, Inuvialuit, as well as non-Indigenous, all with different ways of being. One-size-fits-all solutions don’t work—they never have. And the housing crisis is complex, and it’s difficult to unravel. So we’re trying to move forward with a few different approaches, maybe in a few different places, and we’re hoping that some communities, some organizations, or even some individual people, will see some positive impacts.

     As appeared in the June 2025 issue of Canadian Architect magazine 

    The post Insites: Addressing the Northern housing crisis appeared first on Canadian Architect.
    #insites #addressing #northern #housing #crisis
    Insites: Addressing the Northern housing crisis
    The housing crisis in Canada’s North, which has particularly affected the majority Indigenous population in northern communities, has been of ongoing concern to firms such as Taylor Architecture Group. Formerly known as Pin/Taylor, the firm was established in Yellowknife in 1983. TAG’s Principal, Simon Taylor, says that despite recent political gains for First Nations, “by and large, life is not improving up here.” Taylor and his colleagues have designed many different types of housing across the North. But the problems exceed the normal scope of architectural practice. TAG’s Manager of Research and Development, Kristel Derkowski, says, “We can design the units well, but it doesn’t solve many of the underlying problems.” To respond, she says, “we’ve backed up the process to look at the root causes more.” As a result, “the design challenges are informed by much broader systemic research.”  We spoke to Derkowski about her research, and the work that Taylor Architecture Group is doing to act on it. Here’s what she has to say. Inadequate housing from the start The Northwest Territories is about 51% Indigenous. Most non-Indigenous people are concentrated in the capital city of Yellowknife. Outside of Yellowknife, the territory is very much majority Indigenous.  The federal government got involved in delivering housing to the far North in 1959. There were problems with this program right from the beginning. One issue was that when the houses were first delivered, they were designed and fabricated down south, and they were completely inadequate for the climate. The houses from that initial program were called “Matchbox houses” because they were so small. These early stages of housing delivery helped establish the precedent that a lower standard of housing was acceptable for northern Indigenous residents compared to Euro-Canadian residents elsewhere. In many cases, that double-standard persists to this day. The houses were also inappropriately designed for northern cultures. It’s been said in the research that the way that these houses were delivered to northern settlements was a significant factor in people being divorced from their traditional lifestyles, their traditional hierarchies, the way that they understood home. It was imposing a Euro-Canadian model on Indigenous communities and their ways of life.  Part of what the federal government was trying to do was to impose a cash economy and stimulate a market. They were delivering houses and asking for rent. But there weren’t a lot of opportunities to earn cash. This housing was delivered around the sites of former fur trading posts—but the fur trade had collapsed by 1930. There weren’t a lot of jobs. There wasn’t a lot of wage-based employment. And yet, rental payments were being collected in cash, and the rental payments increased significantly over the span of a couple decades.  The imposition of a cash economy created problems culturally. It’s been said that public housing delivery, in combination with other social policies, served to introduce the concept of poverty in the far North, where it hadn’t existed before. These policies created a situation where Indigenous northerners couldn’t afford to be adequately housed, because housing demanded cash, and cash wasn’t always available. That’s a big theme that continues to persist today. Most of the territory’s communities remain “non-market”: there is no housing market. There are different kinds of economies in the North—and not all of them revolve wholly around cash. And yet government policies do. The governments’ ideas about housing do, too. So there’s a conflict there.  The federal exit from social housing After 1969, the federal government devolved housing to the territorial government. The Government of Northwest Territories created the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation. By 1974, the housing corporation took over all the stock of federal housing and started to administer it, in addition to building their own. The housing corporation was rapidly building new housing stock from 1975 up until the mid-1990s. But beginning in the early 1990s, the federal government terminated federal spending on new social housing across the whole country. A couple of years after that, they also decided to allow operational agreements with social housing providers to expire. It didn’t happen that quickly—and maybe not everybody noticed, because it wasn’t a drastic change where all operational funding disappeared immediately. But at that time, the federal government was in 25- to 50-year operational agreements with various housing providers across the country. After 1995, these long-term operating agreements were no longer being renewed—not just in the North, but everywhere in Canada.  With the housing corporation up here, that change started in 1996, and we have until 2038 before the federal contribution of operational funding reaches zero. As a result, beginning in 1996, the number of units owned by the NWT Housing Corporation plateaued. There was a little bump in housing stock after that—another 200 units or so in the early 2000s. But basically, the Northwest Territories was stuck for 25 years, from 1996 to 2021, with the same number of public housing units. In 1990, there was a report on housing in the NWT that was funded by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. That report noted that housing was already in a crisis state. At that time, in 1990, researchers said it would take 30 more years to meet existing housing need, if housing production continued at the current rate. The other problem is that houses were so inadequately constructed to begin with, that they generally needed replacement after 15 years. So housing in the Northwest Territories already had serious problems in 1990. Then in 1996, the housing corporation stopped building more. So if you compare the total number of social housing units with the total need for subsidized housing in the territory, you can see a severely widening gap in recent decades. We’ve seen a serious escalation in housing need. The Northwest Territories has a very, very small tax base, and it’s extremely expensive to provide services here. Most of our funding for public services comes from the federal government. The NWT on its own does not have a lot of buying power. So ever since the federal government stopped providing operational funding for housing, the territorial government has been hard-pressed to replace that funding with its own internal resources. I should probably note that this wasn’t only a problem for the Northwest Territories. Across Canada, we have seen mass homelessness visibly emerge since the ’90s. This is related, at least in part, to the federal government’s decisions to terminate funding for social housing at that time. Today’s housing crisis Getting to present-day conditions in the NWT, we now have some “market” communities and some “non-market” communities. There are 33 communities total in the NWT, and at least 27 of these don’t have a housing market: there’s no private rental market and there’s no resale market. This relates back to the conflict I mentioned before: the cash economy did not entirely take root. In simple terms, there isn’t enough local employment or income opportunity for a housing market—in conventional terms—to work.  Yellowknife is an outlier in the territory. Economic opportunity is concentrated in the capital city. We also have five other “market” communities that are regional centres for the territorial government, where more employment and economic activity take place. Across the non-market communities, on average, the rate of unsuitable or inadequate housing is about five times what it is elsewhere in Canada. Rates of unemployment are about five times what they are in Yellowknife. On top of this, the communities with the highest concentration of Indigenous residents also have the highest rates of unsuitable or inadequate housing, and also have the lowest income opportunity. These statistics clearly show that the inequalities in the territory are highly racialized.  Given the situation in non-market communities, there is a severe affordability crisis in terms of the cost to deliver housing. It’s very, very expensive to build housing here. A single detached home costs over a million dollars to build in a place like Fort Good Hope. We’re talking about a very modest three-bedroom house, smaller than what you’d typically build in the South. The million-dollar price tag on each house is a serious issue. Meanwhile, in a non-market community, the potential resale value is extremely low. So there’s a massive gap between the cost of construction and the value of the home once built—and that’s why you have no housing market. It means that private development is impossible. That’s why, until recently, only the federal and territorial governments have been building new homes in non-market communities. It’s so expensive to do, and as soon as the house is built, its value plummets.  The costs of living are also very high. According to the NWT Bureau of Statistics, the estimated living costs for an individual in Fort Good Hope are about 1.8 times what it costs to live in Edmonton. Then when it comes to housing specifically, there are further issues with operations and maintenance. The NWT is not tied into the North American hydro grid, and in most communities, electricity is produced by a diesel generator. This is extremely expensive. Everything needs to be shipped in, including fuel. So costs for heating fuel are high as well, as are the heating loads. Then, maintenance and repairs can be very difficult, and of course, very costly. If you need any specialized parts or specialized labour, you are flying those parts and those people in from down South. So to take on the costs of homeownership, on top of the costs of living—in a place where income opportunity is limited to begin with—this is extremely challenging. And from a statistical or systemic perspective, this is simply not in reach for most community members. In 2021, the NWT Housing Corporation underwent a strategic renewal and became Housing Northwest Territories. Their mandate went into a kind of flux. They started to pivot from being the primary landlord in the territory towards being a partner to other third-party housing providers, which might be Indigenous governments, community housing providers, nonprofits, municipalities. But those other organisations, in most cases, aren’t equipped or haven’t stepped forward to take on social housing. Even though the federal government is releasing capital funding for affordable housing again, northern communities can’t always capitalize on that, because the source of funding for operations remains in question. Housing in non-market communities essentially needs to be subsidized—not just in terms of construction, but also in terms of operations. But that operational funding is no longer available. I can’t stress enough how critical this issue is for the North. Fort Good Hope and “one thing thatworked” I’ll talk a bit about Fort Good Hope. I don’t want to be speaking on behalf of the community here, but I will share a bit about the realities on the ground, as a way of putting things into context.  Fort Good Hope, or Rádeyı̨lı̨kóé, is on the Mackenzie River, close to the Arctic Circle. There’s a winter road that’s open at best from January until March—the window is getting narrower because of climate change. There were also barges running each summer for material transportation, but those have been cancelled for the past two years because of droughts linked to climate change. Aside from that, it’s a fly-in community. It’s very remote. It has about 500-600 people. According to census data, less than half of those people live in what’s considered acceptable housing.  The biggest problem is housing adequacy. That’s CMHC’s term for housing in need of major repairs. This applies to about 36% of households in Fort Good Hope. In terms of ownership, almost 40% of the community’s housing stock is managed by Housing NWT. That’s a combination of public housing units and market housing units—which are for professionals like teachers and nurses. There’s also a pretty high percentage of owner-occupied units—about 46%.  The story told by the community is that when public housing arrived in the 1960s, the people were living in owner-built log homes. Federal agents arrived and they considered some of those homes to be inadequate or unacceptable, and they bulldozed those homes, then replaced some of them—but maybe not all—with public housing units. Then residents had no choice but to rent from the people who took their homes away. This was not a good way to start up a public housing system. The state of housing in Fort Good Hope Then there was an issue with the rental rates, which drastically increased over time. During a presentation to a government committee in the ’80s, a community member explained that they had initially accepted a place in public housing for a rental fee of a month in 1971. By 1984, the same community member was expected to pay a month. That might not sound like much in today’s terms, but it was roughly a 13,000% increase for that same tenant—and it’s not like they had any other housing options to choose from. So by that point, they’re stuck with paying whatever is asked.  On top of that, the housing units were poorly built and rapidly deteriorated. One description from that era said the walls were four inches thick, with windows oriented north, and water tanks that froze in the winter and fell through the floor. The single heating source was right next to the only door—residents were concerned about the fire hazard that obviously created. Ultimately the community said: “We don’t actually want any more public housing units. We want to go back to homeownership, which was what we had before.”  So Fort Good Hope was a leader in housing at that time and continues to be to this day. The community approached the territorial government and made a proposal: “Give us the block funding for home construction, we’ll administer it ourselves, we’ll help people build houses, and they can keep them.” That actually worked really well. That was the start of the Homeownership Assistance Programthat ran for about ten years, beginning in 1982. The program expanded across the whole territory after it was piloted in Fort Good Hope. The HAP is still spoken about and written about as the one thing that kind of worked.  Self-built log cabins remain from Fort Good Hope’s 1980s Homeownership Program. Funding was cost-shared between the federal and territorial governments. Through the program, material packages were purchased for clients who were deemed eligible. The client would then contribute their own sweat equity in the form of hauling logs and putting in time on site. They had two years to finish building the house. Then, as long as they lived in that home for five more years, the loan would be forgiven, and they would continue owning the house with no ongoing loan payments. In some cases, there were no mechanical systems provided as part of this package, but the residents would add to the house over the years. A lot of these units are still standing and still lived in today. Many of them are comparatively well-maintained in contrast with other types of housing—for example, public housing units. It’s also worth noting that the one-time cost of the materials package was—from the government’s perspective—only a fraction of the cost to build and maintain a public housing unit over its lifespan. At the time, it cost about to to build a HAP home, whereas the lifetime cost of a public housing unit is in the order of This program was considered very successful in many places, especially in Fort Good Hope. It created about 40% of their local housing stock at that time, which went from about 100 units to about 140. It’s a small community, so that’s quite significant.  What were the successful principles? The community-based decision-making power to allocate the funding. The sweat equity component, which brought homeownership within the range of being attainable for people—because there wasn’t cash needing to be transferred, when the cash wasn’t available. Local materials—they harvested the logs from the land, and the fact that residents could maintain the homes themselves. The Fort Good Hope Construction Centre. Rendering by Taylor Architecture Group The Fort Good Hope Construction Centre The HAP ended the same year that the federal government terminated new spending on social housing. By the late 1990s, the creation of new public housing stock or new homeownership units had gone down to negligible levels. But more recently, things started to change. The federal government started to release money to build affordable housing. Simultaneously, Indigenous governments are working towards Self-Government and settling their Land Claims. Federal funds have started to flow directly to Indigenous groups. Given these changes, the landscape of Northern housing has started to evolve. In 2016, Fort Good Hope created the K’asho Got’ine Housing Society, based on the precedent of the 1980s Fort Good Hope Housing Society. They said: “We did this before, maybe we can do it again.” The community incorporated a non-profit and came up with a five-year plan to meet housing need in their community. One thing the community did right away was start up a crew to deliver housing maintenance and repairs. This is being run by Ne’Rahten Developments Ltd., which is the business arm of Yamoga Land Corporation. Over the span of a few years, they built up a crew of skilled workers. Then Ne’Rahten started thinking, “Why can’t we do more? Why can’t we build our own housing?” They identified a need for a space where people could work year-round, and first get training, then employment, in a stable all-season environment. This was the initial vision for the Fort Good Hope Construction Centre, and this is where TAG got involved. We had some seed funding through the CMHC Housing Supply Challenge when we partnered with Fort Good Hope. We worked with the community for over a year to get the capital funding lined up for the project. This process required us to take on a different role than the one you typically would as an architect. It wasn’t just schematic-design-to-construction-administration. One thing we did pretty early on was a housing design workshop that was open to the whole community, to start understanding what type of housing people would really want to see. Another piece was a lot of outreach and advocacy to build up support for the project and partnerships—for example, with Housing Northwest Territories and Aurora College. We also reached out to our federal MP, the NWT Legislative Assembly and different MLAs, and we talked to a lot of different people about the link between employment and housing. The idea was that the Fort Good Hope Construction Centre would be a demonstration project. Ultimately, funding did come through for the project—from both CMHC and National Indigenous Housing Collaborative Inc. The facility itself will not be architecturally spectacular. It’s basically a big shed where you could build a modular house. But the idea is that the construction of those houses is combined with training, and it creates year-round indoor jobs. It intends to combat the short construction seasons, and the fact that people would otherwise be laid off between projects—which makes it very hard to progress with your training or your career. At the same time, the Construction Centre will build up a skilled labour force that otherwise wouldn’t exist—because when there’s no work, skilled people tend to leave the community. And, importantly, the idea is to keep capital funding in the community. So when there’s a new arena that needs to get built, when there’s a new school that needs to get built, you have a crew of people who are ready to take that on. Rather than flying in skilled labourers, you actually have the community doing it themselves. It’s working towards self-determination in housing too, because if those modular housing units are being built in the community, by community members, then eventually they’re taking over design decisions and decisions about maintenance—in a way that hasn’t really happened for decades. Transitional homeownership My research also looked at a transitional homeownership model that adapts some of the successful principles of the 1980s HAP. Right now, in non-market communities, there are serious gaps in the housing continuum—that is, the different types of housing options available to people. For the most part, you have public housing, and you have homelessness—mostly in the form of hidden homelessness, where people are sleeping on the couches of relatives. Then, in some cases, you have inherited homeownership—where people got homes through the HAP or some other government program. But for the most part, not a lot of people in non-market communities are actually moving into homeownership anymore. I asked the local housing manager in Fort Good Hope: “When’s the last time someone built a house in the community?” She said, “I can only think of one person. It was probably about 20 years ago, and that person actually went to the bank and got a mortgage. If people have a home, it’s usually inherited from their parents or from relatives.” And that situation is a bit of a problem in itself, because it means that people can’t move out of public housing. Public housing traps you in a lot of ways. For example, it punishes employment, because rent is geared to income. It’s been said many times that this model disincentivizes employment. I was in a workshop last year where an Indigenous person spoke up and said, “Actually, it’s not disincentivizing, it punishes employment. It takes things away from you.” Somebody at the territorial housing corporation in Yellowknife told me, “We have clients who are over the income threshold for public housing, but there’s nowhere else they can go.” Theoretically, they would go to the private housing market, they would go to market housing, or they would go to homeownership, but those options don’t exist or they aren’t within reach.  So the idea with the transitional homeownership model is to create an option that could allow the highest income earners in a non-market community to move towards homeownership. This could take some pressure off the public housing system. And it would almost be like a wealth distribution measure: people who are able to afford the cost of operating and maintaining a home then have that option, instead of remaining in government-subsidized housing. For those who cannot, the public housing system is still an option—and maybe a few more public housing units are freed up.  I’ve developed about 36 recommendations for a transitional homeownership model in northern non-market communities. The recommendations are meant to be actioned at various scales: at the scale of the individual household, the scale of the housing provider, and the scale of the whole community. The idea is that if you look at housing as part of a whole system, then there are certain moves that might make sense here—in a non-market context especially—that wouldn’t make sense elsewhere. So for example, we’re in a situation where a house doesn’t appreciate in value. It’s not a financial asset, it’s actually a financial liability, and it’s something that costs a lot to maintain over the years. Giving someone a house in a non-market community is actually giving them a burden, but some residents would be quite willing to take this on, just to have an option of getting out of public housing. It just takes a shift in mindset to start considering solutions for that kind of context. One particularly interesting feature of non-market communities is that they’re still functioning with a mixed economy: partially a subsistence-based or traditional economy, and partially a cash economy. I think that’s actually a strength that hasn’t been tapped into by territorial and federal policies. In the far North, in-kind and traditional economies are still very much a way of life. People subsidize their groceries with “country food,” which means food that was harvested from the land. And instead of paying for fuel tank refills in cash, many households in non-market communities are burning wood as their primary heat source. In communities south of the treeline, like Fort Good Hope, that wood is also harvested from the land. Despite there being no exchange of cash involved, these are critical economic activities—and they are also part of a sustainable, resilient economy grounded in local resources and traditional skills. This concept of the mixed economy could be tapped into as part of a housing model, by bringing back the idea of a ‘sweat equity’ contribution instead of a down payment—just like in the HAP. Contributing time and labour is still an economic exchange, but it bypasses the ‘cash’ part—the part that’s still hard to come by in a non-market community. Labour doesn’t have to be manual labour, either. There are all kinds of work that need to take place in a community: maybe taking training courses and working on projects at the Construction Centre, maybe helping out at the Band Office, or providing childcare services for other working parents—and so on. So it could be more inclusive than a model that focuses on manual labour. Another thing to highlight is a rent-to-own trial period. Not every client will be equipped to take on the burdens of homeownership. So you can give people a trial period. If it doesn’t work out and they can’t pay for operations and maintenance, they could continue renting without losing their home. Then it’s worth touching on some basic design principles for the homeownership units. In the North, the solutions that work are often the simplest—not the most technologically innovative. When you’re in a remote location, specialized replacement parts and specialized labour are both difficult to come by. And new technologies aren’t always designed for extreme climates—especially as we trend towards the digital. So rather than installing technologically complex, high-efficiency systems, it actually makes more sense to build something that people are comfortable with, familiar with, and willing to maintain. In a southern context, people suggest solutions like solar panels to manage energy loads. But in the North, the best thing you can do for energy is put a woodstove in the house. That’s something we’ve heard loud and clear in many communities. Even if people can’t afford to fill their fuel tank, they’re still able to keep chopping wood—or their neighbour is, or their brother, or their kid, and so on. It’s just a different way of looking at things and a way of bringing things back down to earth, back within reach of community members.  Regulatory barriers to housing access: Revisiting the National Building Code On that note, there’s one more project I’ll touch on briefly. TAG is working on a research study, funded by Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada, which looks at regulatory barriers to housing access in the North. The National Building Codehas evolved largely to serve the southern market context, where constraints and resources are both very different than they are up here. Technical solutions in the NBC are based on assumptions that, in some cases, simply don’t apply in northern communities. Here’s a very simple example: minimum distance to a fire hydrant. Most of our communities don’t have fire hydrants at all. We don’t have municipal services. The closest hydrant might be thousands of kilometres away. So what do we do instead? We just have different constraints to consider. That’s just one example but there are many more. We are looking closely at the NBC, and we are also working with a couple of different communities in different situations. The idea is to identify where there are conflicts between what’s regulated and what’s actually feasible, viable, and practical when it comes to on-the-ground realities. Then we’ll look at some alternative solutions for housing. The idea is to meet the intent of the NBC, but arrive at some technical solutions that are more practical to build, easier to maintain, and more appropriate for northern communities.  All of the projects I’ve just described are fairly recent, and very much still ongoing. We’ll see how it all plays out. I’m sure we’re going to run into a lot of new barriers and learn a lot more on the way, but it’s an incremental trial-and-error process. Even with the Construction Centre, we’re saying that this is a demonstration project, but how—or if—it rolls out in other communities would be totally community-dependent, and it could look very, very different from place to place.  In doing any research on Northern housing, one of the consistent findings is that there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Northern communities are not all the same. There are all kinds of different governance structures, different climates, ground conditions, transportation routes, different population sizes, different people, different cultures. Communities are Dene, Métis, Inuvialuit, as well as non-Indigenous, all with different ways of being. One-size-fits-all solutions don’t work—they never have. And the housing crisis is complex, and it’s difficult to unravel. So we’re trying to move forward with a few different approaches, maybe in a few different places, and we’re hoping that some communities, some organizations, or even some individual people, will see some positive impacts.  As appeared in the June 2025 issue of Canadian Architect magazine  The post Insites: Addressing the Northern housing crisis appeared first on Canadian Architect. #insites #addressing #northern #housing #crisis
    WWW.CANADIANARCHITECT.COM
    Insites: Addressing the Northern housing crisis
    The housing crisis in Canada’s North, which has particularly affected the majority Indigenous population in northern communities, has been of ongoing concern to firms such as Taylor Architecture Group (TAG). Formerly known as Pin/Taylor, the firm was established in Yellowknife in 1983. TAG’s Principal, Simon Taylor, says that despite recent political gains for First Nations, “by and large, life is not improving up here.” Taylor and his colleagues have designed many different types of housing across the North. But the problems exceed the normal scope of architectural practice. TAG’s Manager of Research and Development, Kristel Derkowski, says, “We can design the units well, but it doesn’t solve many of the underlying problems.” To respond, she says, “we’ve backed up the process to look at the root causes more.” As a result, “the design challenges are informed by much broader systemic research.”  We spoke to Derkowski about her research, and the work that Taylor Architecture Group is doing to act on it. Here’s what she has to say. Inadequate housing from the start The Northwest Territories is about 51% Indigenous. Most non-Indigenous people are concentrated in the capital city of Yellowknife. Outside of Yellowknife, the territory is very much majority Indigenous.  The federal government got involved in delivering housing to the far North in 1959. There were problems with this program right from the beginning. One issue was that when the houses were first delivered, they were designed and fabricated down south, and they were completely inadequate for the climate. The houses from that initial program were called “Matchbox houses” because they were so small. These early stages of housing delivery helped establish the precedent that a lower standard of housing was acceptable for northern Indigenous residents compared to Euro-Canadian residents elsewhere. In many cases, that double-standard persists to this day. The houses were also inappropriately designed for northern cultures. It’s been said in the research that the way that these houses were delivered to northern settlements was a significant factor in people being divorced from their traditional lifestyles, their traditional hierarchies, the way that they understood home. It was imposing a Euro-Canadian model on Indigenous communities and their ways of life.  Part of what the federal government was trying to do was to impose a cash economy and stimulate a market. They were delivering houses and asking for rent. But there weren’t a lot of opportunities to earn cash. This housing was delivered around the sites of former fur trading posts—but the fur trade had collapsed by 1930. There weren’t a lot of jobs. There wasn’t a lot of wage-based employment. And yet, rental payments were being collected in cash, and the rental payments increased significantly over the span of a couple decades.  The imposition of a cash economy created problems culturally. It’s been said that public housing delivery, in combination with other social policies, served to introduce the concept of poverty in the far North, where it hadn’t existed before. These policies created a situation where Indigenous northerners couldn’t afford to be adequately housed, because housing demanded cash, and cash wasn’t always available. That’s a big theme that continues to persist today. Most of the territory’s communities remain “non-market”: there is no housing market. There are different kinds of economies in the North—and not all of them revolve wholly around cash. And yet government policies do. The governments’ ideas about housing do, too. So there’s a conflict there.  The federal exit from social housing After 1969, the federal government devolved housing to the territorial government. The Government of Northwest Territories created the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation. By 1974, the housing corporation took over all the stock of federal housing and started to administer it, in addition to building their own. The housing corporation was rapidly building new housing stock from 1975 up until the mid-1990s. But beginning in the early 1990s, the federal government terminated federal spending on new social housing across the whole country. A couple of years after that, they also decided to allow operational agreements with social housing providers to expire. It didn’t happen that quickly—and maybe not everybody noticed, because it wasn’t a drastic change where all operational funding disappeared immediately. But at that time, the federal government was in 25- to 50-year operational agreements with various housing providers across the country. After 1995, these long-term operating agreements were no longer being renewed—not just in the North, but everywhere in Canada.  With the housing corporation up here, that change started in 1996, and we have until 2038 before the federal contribution of operational funding reaches zero. As a result, beginning in 1996, the number of units owned by the NWT Housing Corporation plateaued. There was a little bump in housing stock after that—another 200 units or so in the early 2000s. But basically, the Northwest Territories was stuck for 25 years, from 1996 to 2021, with the same number of public housing units. In 1990, there was a report on housing in the NWT that was funded by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). That report noted that housing was already in a crisis state. At that time, in 1990, researchers said it would take 30 more years to meet existing housing need, if housing production continued at the current rate. The other problem is that houses were so inadequately constructed to begin with, that they generally needed replacement after 15 years. So housing in the Northwest Territories already had serious problems in 1990. Then in 1996, the housing corporation stopped building more. So if you compare the total number of social housing units with the total need for subsidized housing in the territory, you can see a severely widening gap in recent decades. We’ve seen a serious escalation in housing need. The Northwest Territories has a very, very small tax base, and it’s extremely expensive to provide services here. Most of our funding for public services comes from the federal government. The NWT on its own does not have a lot of buying power. So ever since the federal government stopped providing operational funding for housing, the territorial government has been hard-pressed to replace that funding with its own internal resources. I should probably note that this wasn’t only a problem for the Northwest Territories. Across Canada, we have seen mass homelessness visibly emerge since the ’90s. This is related, at least in part, to the federal government’s decisions to terminate funding for social housing at that time. Today’s housing crisis Getting to present-day conditions in the NWT, we now have some “market” communities and some “non-market” communities. There are 33 communities total in the NWT, and at least 27 of these don’t have a housing market: there’s no private rental market and there’s no resale market. This relates back to the conflict I mentioned before: the cash economy did not entirely take root. In simple terms, there isn’t enough local employment or income opportunity for a housing market—in conventional terms—to work.  Yellowknife is an outlier in the territory. Economic opportunity is concentrated in the capital city. We also have five other “market” communities that are regional centres for the territorial government, where more employment and economic activity take place. Across the non-market communities, on average, the rate of unsuitable or inadequate housing is about five times what it is elsewhere in Canada. Rates of unemployment are about five times what they are in Yellowknife. On top of this, the communities with the highest concentration of Indigenous residents also have the highest rates of unsuitable or inadequate housing, and also have the lowest income opportunity. These statistics clearly show that the inequalities in the territory are highly racialized.  Given the situation in non-market communities, there is a severe affordability crisis in terms of the cost to deliver housing. It’s very, very expensive to build housing here. A single detached home costs over a million dollars to build in a place like Fort Good Hope (Rádeyı̨lı̨kóé). We’re talking about a very modest three-bedroom house, smaller than what you’d typically build in the South. The million-dollar price tag on each house is a serious issue. Meanwhile, in a non-market community, the potential resale value is extremely low. So there’s a massive gap between the cost of construction and the value of the home once built—and that’s why you have no housing market. It means that private development is impossible. That’s why, until recently, only the federal and territorial governments have been building new homes in non-market communities. It’s so expensive to do, and as soon as the house is built, its value plummets.  The costs of living are also very high. According to the NWT Bureau of Statistics, the estimated living costs for an individual in Fort Good Hope are about 1.8 times what it costs to live in Edmonton. Then when it comes to housing specifically, there are further issues with operations and maintenance. The NWT is not tied into the North American hydro grid, and in most communities, electricity is produced by a diesel generator. This is extremely expensive. Everything needs to be shipped in, including fuel. So costs for heating fuel are high as well, as are the heating loads. Then, maintenance and repairs can be very difficult, and of course, very costly. If you need any specialized parts or specialized labour, you are flying those parts and those people in from down South. So to take on the costs of homeownership, on top of the costs of living—in a place where income opportunity is limited to begin with—this is extremely challenging. And from a statistical or systemic perspective, this is simply not in reach for most community members. In 2021, the NWT Housing Corporation underwent a strategic renewal and became Housing Northwest Territories. Their mandate went into a kind of flux. They started to pivot from being the primary landlord in the territory towards being a partner to other third-party housing providers, which might be Indigenous governments, community housing providers, nonprofits, municipalities. But those other organisations, in most cases, aren’t equipped or haven’t stepped forward to take on social housing. Even though the federal government is releasing capital funding for affordable housing again, northern communities can’t always capitalize on that, because the source of funding for operations remains in question. Housing in non-market communities essentially needs to be subsidized—not just in terms of construction, but also in terms of operations. But that operational funding is no longer available. I can’t stress enough how critical this issue is for the North. Fort Good Hope and “one thing that (kind of) worked” I’ll talk a bit about Fort Good Hope. I don’t want to be speaking on behalf of the community here, but I will share a bit about the realities on the ground, as a way of putting things into context.  Fort Good Hope, or Rádeyı̨lı̨kóé, is on the Mackenzie River, close to the Arctic Circle. There’s a winter road that’s open at best from January until March—the window is getting narrower because of climate change. There were also barges running each summer for material transportation, but those have been cancelled for the past two years because of droughts linked to climate change. Aside from that, it’s a fly-in community. It’s very remote. It has about 500-600 people. According to census data, less than half of those people live in what’s considered acceptable housing.  The biggest problem is housing adequacy. That’s CMHC’s term for housing in need of major repairs. This applies to about 36% of households in Fort Good Hope. In terms of ownership, almost 40% of the community’s housing stock is managed by Housing NWT. That’s a combination of public housing units and market housing units—which are for professionals like teachers and nurses. There’s also a pretty high percentage of owner-occupied units—about 46%.  The story told by the community is that when public housing arrived in the 1960s, the people were living in owner-built log homes. Federal agents arrived and they considered some of those homes to be inadequate or unacceptable, and they bulldozed those homes, then replaced some of them—but maybe not all—with public housing units. Then residents had no choice but to rent from the people who took their homes away. This was not a good way to start up a public housing system. The state of housing in Fort Good Hope Then there was an issue with the rental rates, which drastically increased over time. During a presentation to a government committee in the ’80s, a community member explained that they had initially accepted a place in public housing for a rental fee of $2 a month in 1971. By 1984, the same community member was expected to pay $267 a month. That might not sound like much in today’s terms, but it was roughly a 13,000% increase for that same tenant—and it’s not like they had any other housing options to choose from. So by that point, they’re stuck with paying whatever is asked.  On top of that, the housing units were poorly built and rapidly deteriorated. One description from that era said the walls were four inches thick, with windows oriented north, and water tanks that froze in the winter and fell through the floor. The single heating source was right next to the only door—residents were concerned about the fire hazard that obviously created. Ultimately the community said: “We don’t actually want any more public housing units. We want to go back to homeownership, which was what we had before.”  So Fort Good Hope was a leader in housing at that time and continues to be to this day. The community approached the territorial government and made a proposal: “Give us the block funding for home construction, we’ll administer it ourselves, we’ll help people build houses, and they can keep them.” That actually worked really well. That was the start of the Homeownership Assistance Program (HAP) that ran for about ten years, beginning in 1982. The program expanded across the whole territory after it was piloted in Fort Good Hope. The HAP is still spoken about and written about as the one thing that kind of worked.  Self-built log cabins remain from Fort Good Hope’s 1980s Homeownership Program (HAP). Funding was cost-shared between the federal and territorial governments. Through the program, material packages were purchased for clients who were deemed eligible. The client would then contribute their own sweat equity in the form of hauling logs and putting in time on site. They had two years to finish building the house. Then, as long as they lived in that home for five more years, the loan would be forgiven, and they would continue owning the house with no ongoing loan payments. In some cases, there were no mechanical systems provided as part of this package, but the residents would add to the house over the years. A lot of these units are still standing and still lived in today. Many of them are comparatively well-maintained in contrast with other types of housing—for example, public housing units. It’s also worth noting that the one-time cost of the materials package was—from the government’s perspective—only a fraction of the cost to build and maintain a public housing unit over its lifespan. At the time, it cost about $50,000 to $80,000 to build a HAP home, whereas the lifetime cost of a public housing unit is in the order of $2,000,000. This program was considered very successful in many places, especially in Fort Good Hope. It created about 40% of their local housing stock at that time, which went from about 100 units to about 140. It’s a small community, so that’s quite significant.  What were the successful principles? The community-based decision-making power to allocate the funding. The sweat equity component, which brought homeownership within the range of being attainable for people—because there wasn’t cash needing to be transferred, when the cash wasn’t available. Local materials—they harvested the logs from the land, and the fact that residents could maintain the homes themselves. The Fort Good Hope Construction Centre. Rendering by Taylor Architecture Group The Fort Good Hope Construction Centre The HAP ended the same year that the federal government terminated new spending on social housing. By the late 1990s, the creation of new public housing stock or new homeownership units had gone down to negligible levels. But more recently, things started to change. The federal government started to release money to build affordable housing. Simultaneously, Indigenous governments are working towards Self-Government and settling their Land Claims. Federal funds have started to flow directly to Indigenous groups. Given these changes, the landscape of Northern housing has started to evolve. In 2016, Fort Good Hope created the K’asho Got’ine Housing Society, based on the precedent of the 1980s Fort Good Hope Housing Society. They said: “We did this before, maybe we can do it again.” The community incorporated a non-profit and came up with a five-year plan to meet housing need in their community. One thing the community did right away was start up a crew to deliver housing maintenance and repairs. This is being run by Ne’Rahten Developments Ltd., which is the business arm of Yamoga Land Corporation (the local Indigenous Government). Over the span of a few years, they built up a crew of skilled workers. Then Ne’Rahten started thinking, “Why can’t we do more? Why can’t we build our own housing?” They identified a need for a space where people could work year-round, and first get training, then employment, in a stable all-season environment. This was the initial vision for the Fort Good Hope Construction Centre, and this is where TAG got involved. We had some seed funding through the CMHC Housing Supply Challenge when we partnered with Fort Good Hope. We worked with the community for over a year to get the capital funding lined up for the project. This process required us to take on a different role than the one you typically would as an architect. It wasn’t just schematic-design-to-construction-administration. One thing we did pretty early on was a housing design workshop that was open to the whole community, to start understanding what type of housing people would really want to see. Another piece was a lot of outreach and advocacy to build up support for the project and partnerships—for example, with Housing Northwest Territories and Aurora College. We also reached out to our federal MP, the NWT Legislative Assembly and different MLAs, and we talked to a lot of different people about the link between employment and housing. The idea was that the Fort Good Hope Construction Centre would be a demonstration project. Ultimately, funding did come through for the project—from both CMHC and National Indigenous Housing Collaborative Inc. The facility itself will not be architecturally spectacular. It’s basically a big shed where you could build a modular house. But the idea is that the construction of those houses is combined with training, and it creates year-round indoor jobs. It intends to combat the short construction seasons, and the fact that people would otherwise be laid off between projects—which makes it very hard to progress with your training or your career. At the same time, the Construction Centre will build up a skilled labour force that otherwise wouldn’t exist—because when there’s no work, skilled people tend to leave the community. And, importantly, the idea is to keep capital funding in the community. So when there’s a new arena that needs to get built, when there’s a new school that needs to get built, you have a crew of people who are ready to take that on. Rather than flying in skilled labourers, you actually have the community doing it themselves. It’s working towards self-determination in housing too, because if those modular housing units are being built in the community, by community members, then eventually they’re taking over design decisions and decisions about maintenance—in a way that hasn’t really happened for decades. Transitional homeownership My research also looked at a transitional homeownership model that adapts some of the successful principles of the 1980s HAP. Right now, in non-market communities, there are serious gaps in the housing continuum—that is, the different types of housing options available to people. For the most part, you have public housing, and you have homelessness—mostly in the form of hidden homelessness, where people are sleeping on the couches of relatives. Then, in some cases, you have inherited homeownership—where people got homes through the HAP or some other government program. But for the most part, not a lot of people in non-market communities are actually moving into homeownership anymore. I asked the local housing manager in Fort Good Hope: “When’s the last time someone built a house in the community?” She said, “I can only think of one person. It was probably about 20 years ago, and that person actually went to the bank and got a mortgage. If people have a home, it’s usually inherited from their parents or from relatives.” And that situation is a bit of a problem in itself, because it means that people can’t move out of public housing. Public housing traps you in a lot of ways. For example, it punishes employment, because rent is geared to income. It’s been said many times that this model disincentivizes employment. I was in a workshop last year where an Indigenous person spoke up and said, “Actually, it’s not disincentivizing, it punishes employment. It takes things away from you.” Somebody at the territorial housing corporation in Yellowknife told me, “We have clients who are over the income threshold for public housing, but there’s nowhere else they can go.” Theoretically, they would go to the private housing market, they would go to market housing, or they would go to homeownership, but those options don’t exist or they aren’t within reach.  So the idea with the transitional homeownership model is to create an option that could allow the highest income earners in a non-market community to move towards homeownership. This could take some pressure off the public housing system. And it would almost be like a wealth distribution measure: people who are able to afford the cost of operating and maintaining a home then have that option, instead of remaining in government-subsidized housing. For those who cannot, the public housing system is still an option—and maybe a few more public housing units are freed up.  I’ve developed about 36 recommendations for a transitional homeownership model in northern non-market communities. The recommendations are meant to be actioned at various scales: at the scale of the individual household, the scale of the housing provider, and the scale of the whole community. The idea is that if you look at housing as part of a whole system, then there are certain moves that might make sense here—in a non-market context especially—that wouldn’t make sense elsewhere. So for example, we’re in a situation where a house doesn’t appreciate in value. It’s not a financial asset, it’s actually a financial liability, and it’s something that costs a lot to maintain over the years. Giving someone a house in a non-market community is actually giving them a burden, but some residents would be quite willing to take this on, just to have an option of getting out of public housing. It just takes a shift in mindset to start considering solutions for that kind of context. One particularly interesting feature of non-market communities is that they’re still functioning with a mixed economy: partially a subsistence-based or traditional economy, and partially a cash economy. I think that’s actually a strength that hasn’t been tapped into by territorial and federal policies. In the far North, in-kind and traditional economies are still very much a way of life. People subsidize their groceries with “country food,” which means food that was harvested from the land. And instead of paying for fuel tank refills in cash, many households in non-market communities are burning wood as their primary heat source. In communities south of the treeline, like Fort Good Hope, that wood is also harvested from the land. Despite there being no exchange of cash involved, these are critical economic activities—and they are also part of a sustainable, resilient economy grounded in local resources and traditional skills. This concept of the mixed economy could be tapped into as part of a housing model, by bringing back the idea of a ‘sweat equity’ contribution instead of a down payment—just like in the HAP. Contributing time and labour is still an economic exchange, but it bypasses the ‘cash’ part—the part that’s still hard to come by in a non-market community. Labour doesn’t have to be manual labour, either. There are all kinds of work that need to take place in a community: maybe taking training courses and working on projects at the Construction Centre, maybe helping out at the Band Office, or providing childcare services for other working parents—and so on. So it could be more inclusive than a model that focuses on manual labour. Another thing to highlight is a rent-to-own trial period. Not every client will be equipped to take on the burdens of homeownership. So you can give people a trial period. If it doesn’t work out and they can’t pay for operations and maintenance, they could continue renting without losing their home. Then it’s worth touching on some basic design principles for the homeownership units. In the North, the solutions that work are often the simplest—not the most technologically innovative. When you’re in a remote location, specialized replacement parts and specialized labour are both difficult to come by. And new technologies aren’t always designed for extreme climates—especially as we trend towards the digital. So rather than installing technologically complex, high-efficiency systems, it actually makes more sense to build something that people are comfortable with, familiar with, and willing to maintain. In a southern context, people suggest solutions like solar panels to manage energy loads. But in the North, the best thing you can do for energy is put a woodstove in the house. That’s something we’ve heard loud and clear in many communities. Even if people can’t afford to fill their fuel tank, they’re still able to keep chopping wood—or their neighbour is, or their brother, or their kid, and so on. It’s just a different way of looking at things and a way of bringing things back down to earth, back within reach of community members.  Regulatory barriers to housing access: Revisiting the National Building Code On that note, there’s one more project I’ll touch on briefly. TAG is working on a research study, funded by Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada, which looks at regulatory barriers to housing access in the North. The National Building Code (NBC) has evolved largely to serve the southern market context, where constraints and resources are both very different than they are up here. Technical solutions in the NBC are based on assumptions that, in some cases, simply don’t apply in northern communities. Here’s a very simple example: minimum distance to a fire hydrant. Most of our communities don’t have fire hydrants at all. We don’t have municipal services. The closest hydrant might be thousands of kilometres away. So what do we do instead? We just have different constraints to consider. That’s just one example but there are many more. We are looking closely at the NBC, and we are also working with a couple of different communities in different situations. The idea is to identify where there are conflicts between what’s regulated and what’s actually feasible, viable, and practical when it comes to on-the-ground realities. Then we’ll look at some alternative solutions for housing. The idea is to meet the intent of the NBC, but arrive at some technical solutions that are more practical to build, easier to maintain, and more appropriate for northern communities.  All of the projects I’ve just described are fairly recent, and very much still ongoing. We’ll see how it all plays out. I’m sure we’re going to run into a lot of new barriers and learn a lot more on the way, but it’s an incremental trial-and-error process. Even with the Construction Centre, we’re saying that this is a demonstration project, but how—or if—it rolls out in other communities would be totally community-dependent, and it could look very, very different from place to place.  In doing any research on Northern housing, one of the consistent findings is that there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Northern communities are not all the same. There are all kinds of different governance structures, different climates, ground conditions, transportation routes, different population sizes, different people, different cultures. Communities are Dene, Métis, Inuvialuit, as well as non-Indigenous, all with different ways of being. One-size-fits-all solutions don’t work—they never have. And the housing crisis is complex, and it’s difficult to unravel. So we’re trying to move forward with a few different approaches, maybe in a few different places, and we’re hoping that some communities, some organizations, or even some individual people, will see some positive impacts.  As appeared in the June 2025 issue of Canadian Architect magazine  The post Insites: Addressing the Northern housing crisis appeared first on Canadian Architect.
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos 0 Anterior
  • For Some Recent Graduates, the A.I. Job Apocalypse May Already Be Here

    The unemployment rate for recent college graduates has jumped as companies try to replace entry-level workers with artificial intelligence.
    #some #recent #graduates #job #apocalypse
    For Some Recent Graduates, the A.I. Job Apocalypse May Already Be Here
    The unemployment rate for recent college graduates has jumped as companies try to replace entry-level workers with artificial intelligence. #some #recent #graduates #job #apocalypse
    WWW.NYTIMES.COM
    For Some Recent Graduates, the A.I. Job Apocalypse May Already Be Here
    The unemployment rate for recent college graduates has jumped as companies try to replace entry-level workers with artificial intelligence.
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos 0 Anterior
  • AI could erase half of all entry-level white-collar jobs within five years, warns Anthropic CEO

    What just happened? Hearing people warn about the danger that generative AI presents to the global job market is concerning enough, but it's especially worrying when these ominous predictions come from those behind the technology. Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, believes that AI could wipe out about half of all entry-level white-collar jobs in the next five years, leading to unemployment spikes up to 20%.
    Amodei made his comments during an interview with Axios. He said that AI companies and the government needed to stop "sugar-coating" the potential mass elimination of jobs across technology, finance, law, consulting and other white-collar professions, with entry-level jobs most at risk.

    Amodei said he was making this warning public in the hope that the government and other AI giants such as OpenAI will start preparing ways to protect the nation from a situation that could get out of hand.
    "Most of them are unaware that this is about to happen," Amodei said. "It sounds crazy, and people just don't believe it."

    The CEO's comments are backed up by reports into the state of the jobs market. The US IT job market declined for the second year in a row in 2024. There was also a report from SignalFire that found Big Tech's hiring of new graduates is down by over 50% compared to the pre-pandemic levels of 2019. Startups, meanwhile, have seen their hiring of new grads fall by over 30% during the same period.
    We're also seeing huge layoffs across multiple tech companies, a large part of which can be attributed to AI replacing workers' duties.
    The one bit of good news for workers is that some firms, including Klarna and Duolingo, are finding that the subpar performance of these bots and the public's negative feelings toward their use are forcing companies to start hiring humans again.
    // Related Stories

    Amodei's Anthropic AI firm is playing its own part in all this, of course. The company's latest Claude 4 AI model can code at a proficiency level close to that of humans – it's also very good at lying and blackmail.
    "We, as the producers of this technology, have a duty and an obligation to be honest about what is coming," Amodei said. "I don't think this is on people's radar."
    The AI arms race in this billion-dollar industry is resulting in LLMs improving all the time. And with the US in a battle to stay ahead of China, regulation is rarely high on the government's agenda.
    AI companies tend to claim that the technology will augment jobs, helping people become more productive. That might be true right now, but it won't be long before the systems are able to replace the people they are helping.
    Amodei says the first step in addressing the problem is to make people more aware of what jobs are vulnerable to AI replacement. Helping workers better understand how AI can augment their jobs could also mitigate job losses, as would more government action. Or there's always OpenAI CEO Sam Altman's solution: universal basic income, though that will come with plenty of issues of its own.
    Masthead: kate.sade
    #could #erase #half #all #entrylevel
    AI could erase half of all entry-level white-collar jobs within five years, warns Anthropic CEO
    What just happened? Hearing people warn about the danger that generative AI presents to the global job market is concerning enough, but it's especially worrying when these ominous predictions come from those behind the technology. Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, believes that AI could wipe out about half of all entry-level white-collar jobs in the next five years, leading to unemployment spikes up to 20%. Amodei made his comments during an interview with Axios. He said that AI companies and the government needed to stop "sugar-coating" the potential mass elimination of jobs across technology, finance, law, consulting and other white-collar professions, with entry-level jobs most at risk. Amodei said he was making this warning public in the hope that the government and other AI giants such as OpenAI will start preparing ways to protect the nation from a situation that could get out of hand. "Most of them are unaware that this is about to happen," Amodei said. "It sounds crazy, and people just don't believe it." The CEO's comments are backed up by reports into the state of the jobs market. The US IT job market declined for the second year in a row in 2024. There was also a report from SignalFire that found Big Tech's hiring of new graduates is down by over 50% compared to the pre-pandemic levels of 2019. Startups, meanwhile, have seen their hiring of new grads fall by over 30% during the same period. We're also seeing huge layoffs across multiple tech companies, a large part of which can be attributed to AI replacing workers' duties. The one bit of good news for workers is that some firms, including Klarna and Duolingo, are finding that the subpar performance of these bots and the public's negative feelings toward their use are forcing companies to start hiring humans again. // Related Stories Amodei's Anthropic AI firm is playing its own part in all this, of course. The company's latest Claude 4 AI model can code at a proficiency level close to that of humans – it's also very good at lying and blackmail. "We, as the producers of this technology, have a duty and an obligation to be honest about what is coming," Amodei said. "I don't think this is on people's radar." The AI arms race in this billion-dollar industry is resulting in LLMs improving all the time. And with the US in a battle to stay ahead of China, regulation is rarely high on the government's agenda. AI companies tend to claim that the technology will augment jobs, helping people become more productive. That might be true right now, but it won't be long before the systems are able to replace the people they are helping. Amodei says the first step in addressing the problem is to make people more aware of what jobs are vulnerable to AI replacement. Helping workers better understand how AI can augment their jobs could also mitigate job losses, as would more government action. Or there's always OpenAI CEO Sam Altman's solution: universal basic income, though that will come with plenty of issues of its own. Masthead: kate.sade #could #erase #half #all #entrylevel
    WWW.TECHSPOT.COM
    AI could erase half of all entry-level white-collar jobs within five years, warns Anthropic CEO
    What just happened? Hearing people warn about the danger that generative AI presents to the global job market is concerning enough, but it's especially worrying when these ominous predictions come from those behind the technology. Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, believes that AI could wipe out about half of all entry-level white-collar jobs in the next five years, leading to unemployment spikes up to 20%. Amodei made his comments during an interview with Axios. He said that AI companies and the government needed to stop "sugar-coating" the potential mass elimination of jobs across technology, finance, law, consulting and other white-collar professions, with entry-level jobs most at risk. Amodei said he was making this warning public in the hope that the government and other AI giants such as OpenAI will start preparing ways to protect the nation from a situation that could get out of hand. "Most of them are unaware that this is about to happen," Amodei said. "It sounds crazy, and people just don't believe it." The CEO's comments are backed up by reports into the state of the jobs market. The US IT job market declined for the second year in a row in 2024. There was also a report from SignalFire that found Big Tech's hiring of new graduates is down by over 50% compared to the pre-pandemic levels of 2019. Startups, meanwhile, have seen their hiring of new grads fall by over 30% during the same period. We're also seeing huge layoffs across multiple tech companies, a large part of which can be attributed to AI replacing workers' duties. The one bit of good news for workers is that some firms, including Klarna and Duolingo, are finding that the subpar performance of these bots and the public's negative feelings toward their use are forcing companies to start hiring humans again. // Related Stories Amodei's Anthropic AI firm is playing its own part in all this, of course. The company's latest Claude 4 AI model can code at a proficiency level close to that of humans – it's also very good at lying and blackmail. "We, as the producers of this technology, have a duty and an obligation to be honest about what is coming," Amodei said. "I don't think this is on people's radar." The AI arms race in this billion-dollar industry is resulting in LLMs improving all the time. And with the US in a battle to stay ahead of China, regulation is rarely high on the government's agenda. AI companies tend to claim that the technology will augment jobs, helping people become more productive. That might be true right now, but it won't be long before the systems are able to replace the people they are helping. Amodei says the first step in addressing the problem is to make people more aware of what jobs are vulnerable to AI replacement. Helping workers better understand how AI can augment their jobs could also mitigate job losses, as would more government action. Or there's always OpenAI CEO Sam Altman's solution: universal basic income, though that will come with plenty of issues of its own. Masthead: kate.sade
    11 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos 0 Anterior
  • Nearly a quarter of the U.S. is ‘functionally unemployed.’ Here’s what that means 

    According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment rates have not shifted much in recent years. The current unemployment rate is reported as being 4.2%—just a slight increase from the 4% it hovered around between 2022 and 2024. But according to a new report, another measure of unemployment is much higher, and steadily growing.

    The April report, which comes from the Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity, a nonprofit that produces original economic research, documents what it calls the “true rate” of unemployment. That rate refers to “functional unemployment,” which takes into account those who are job-seeking yet unable to find work, as well as those with full-time jobs but whose earnings put them below the poverty line.

    The functional unemployment rate has risen for three consecutive months and is currently 24.4%. That means about one in four U.S. adults are considered functionally unemployed. 

    LISEP Chair Gene Ludwig said in a press release that the outlook on the trend shows “little signs of improvement” amid lack of an “influx of dependable, good-paying jobs.” The report showed the functional unemployment rate rising 1.4% among Black workers to 26.7%. It decreased slightly for white workers, moving from 23.1% to 23%. While the rate for men increasedbringing the total to 20%, women narrowed the gender gap. Women’s true unemployment rate dipped 0.8 percentage points to 28.6%.

    While it’s no secret that the federal government has been steadily shedding jobs, there haven’t been major increases in the unemployment rate. However, the new findings paint a grim picture of how many U.S. workers are struggling to find employment and a livable income. Meanwhile, wage increases haven’t kept up with a rising cost of living, not to mention the cost to raise a child, which has ticked up 25% in the past two years alone.

    “Amid an already uncertain economic outlook, the rise in functional unemployment is a concerning development,” Ludwig explains. “This uncertainty comes at a price, and unfortunately, the low- and middle-income wage earners ultimately end up paying the bill.”
    #nearly #quarter #functionally #unemployed #heres
    Nearly a quarter of the U.S. is ‘functionally unemployed.’ Here’s what that means 
    According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment rates have not shifted much in recent years. The current unemployment rate is reported as being 4.2%—just a slight increase from the 4% it hovered around between 2022 and 2024. But according to a new report, another measure of unemployment is much higher, and steadily growing. The April report, which comes from the Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity, a nonprofit that produces original economic research, documents what it calls the “true rate” of unemployment. That rate refers to “functional unemployment,” which takes into account those who are job-seeking yet unable to find work, as well as those with full-time jobs but whose earnings put them below the poverty line. The functional unemployment rate has risen for three consecutive months and is currently 24.4%. That means about one in four U.S. adults are considered functionally unemployed.  LISEP Chair Gene Ludwig said in a press release that the outlook on the trend shows “little signs of improvement” amid lack of an “influx of dependable, good-paying jobs.” The report showed the functional unemployment rate rising 1.4% among Black workers to 26.7%. It decreased slightly for white workers, moving from 23.1% to 23%. While the rate for men increasedbringing the total to 20%, women narrowed the gender gap. Women’s true unemployment rate dipped 0.8 percentage points to 28.6%. While it’s no secret that the federal government has been steadily shedding jobs, there haven’t been major increases in the unemployment rate. However, the new findings paint a grim picture of how many U.S. workers are struggling to find employment and a livable income. Meanwhile, wage increases haven’t kept up with a rising cost of living, not to mention the cost to raise a child, which has ticked up 25% in the past two years alone. “Amid an already uncertain economic outlook, the rise in functional unemployment is a concerning development,” Ludwig explains. “This uncertainty comes at a price, and unfortunately, the low- and middle-income wage earners ultimately end up paying the bill.” #nearly #quarter #functionally #unemployed #heres
    WWW.FASTCOMPANY.COM
    Nearly a quarter of the U.S. is ‘functionally unemployed.’ Here’s what that means 
    According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment rates have not shifted much in recent years. The current unemployment rate is reported as being 4.2%—just a slight increase from the 4% it hovered around between 2022 and 2024. But according to a new report, another measure of unemployment is much higher, and steadily growing. The April report, which comes from the Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity (LISEP), a nonprofit that produces original economic research, documents what it calls the “true rate” of unemployment. That rate refers to “functional unemployment,” which takes into account those who are job-seeking yet unable to find work, as well as those with full-time jobs but whose earnings put them below the poverty line (under $25,000/year). The functional unemployment rate has risen for three consecutive months and is currently 24.4%. That means about one in four U.S. adults are considered functionally unemployed.  LISEP Chair Gene Ludwig said in a press release that the outlook on the trend shows “little signs of improvement” amid lack of an “influx of dependable, good-paying jobs.” The report showed the functional unemployment rate rising 1.4% among Black workers to 26.7%. It decreased slightly for white workers, moving from 23.1% to 23%. While the rate for men increased (by 1.2%) bringing the total to 20%, women narrowed the gender gap. Women’s true unemployment rate dipped 0.8 percentage points to 28.6%. While it’s no secret that the federal government has been steadily shedding jobs, there haven’t been major increases in the unemployment rate. However, the new findings paint a grim picture of how many U.S. workers are struggling to find employment and a livable income. Meanwhile, wage increases haven’t kept up with a rising cost of living, not to mention the cost to raise a child, which has ticked up 25% in the past two years alone. “Amid an already uncertain economic outlook, the rise in functional unemployment is a concerning development,” Ludwig explains. “This uncertainty comes at a price, and unfortunately, the low- and middle-income wage earners ultimately end up paying the bill.”
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos 0 Anterior
  • How ‘Call of Duty’ Is Getting More Veterans Jobs Than the U.S. Government

    As Memorial Day approaches and National Military Appreciation Month comes to a close, here’s a timely fact: the largest private funder of veteran employment in the United States is a video game.

    Tied to Activision’s long-running military game franchise “Call of Duty,” the aptly named Call of Duty Endowmenthas placed over 150,000 veterans in jobs since 2009 and has been surpassing the federal government’s placement efforts since 2022, according to the organization’s president, Dan Goldenberg.

    Related Stories

    The initiative has raised million through sales of special accessory packs in “Call of Duty” games alone, in addition to other donation streams, and “every cent of which is going to putting vets in jobs,” Goldenberg says.

    Popular on Variety

    “The ‘Call of Duty’ community has been generous. Activision, as partners, have been incredible. They’ve all kind of come together in this ecosystem,” Goldenberg told Variety. “And one thing I know for sure is we’ve had more measurable social impact than anyone I know of in the gaming industry. I can’t think of another cause where it’s not so much the money raised, it’s the impact out. Others may have raised more money, but we’ve put — including the in-game stuff and other donations and corporate partnerships — close to million against this problem. And as a result, 150,000 vets have jobs, their families are more secure. Meaningful employment is just so core to so many other challenges a vet may encounter. If you have a meaningful job, you probably have health care, you have colleagues, you have purpose.”

    According to C.O.D.E., it costs per placement of each vet. The average starting salary for vets in these placements is and 93% are receiving full-time placement. Goldenberg says the program has seen an 89% retention rate at six months. Additionally, 20% of the program’s veterans placed are women.

    Launched in 2009 by former Activision chief Bobby Kotick and co-chaired by General James L. Jones beginning in 2012, the Call of Duty Endowment started out a time when the unemployment rate for veterans “was super high,” Goldenberg said.

    “It stemmed from this very successful gaming franchise that said, ‘We’ve gotten really big, and we owe a lot of our success to the people who inspired us. We’d like to find a good way to give back to them,'” Goldenberg said, adding that “initially, we looked like a lot of corporate foundations writing big checks. But the difference was the discipline that had made Activision and ‘Call of Duty’ so successful was being applied to trying to solve a social problem here.”

    C.O.D.E. is currently bracing for a higher number of unemployed veterans amid the recent job cuts across government service, a popular sector for vet placement, under the administration of President Donald Trump. But Goldenberg says the techniques the endowment already has in place — methods it has been building on through years of trial and error — will help significantly with this influx.

    “A lot of it was vetting our partners, and we insisted on a return on our investment,” Goldenberg said. “The difference was, it was a social return. We wanted to see a lot of vets put in jobs. And when we started, we were at parity. Our cost per placement was about the same as the federal government’s efforts.”

    And with “consistent disciplined vetting and accountability of our grantees on a quarterly basis,” Goldenberg says the Endowment has pulled ahead.

    “It works. So last year, we placed vets in jobs for 1/15th the cost of placement of the government with much higher quality outcomes in terms of average starting salary, retention rates, and the percentage of those jobs that are for full-time employment,” Goldenberg said. “And I guess the big lesson out of it is the discipline of business can really make a big difference for social cost. That’s been our unequivocal experience. We didn’t go in for brands. We looked for nonprofit partners who we thought for the dollar could accomplish the most social impact, and that’s what we’ve gotten.”

    As for how the actual “Call of Duty” video games can help vets, a study done by the Entertainment Software Association found that 86% of surveyed U.S. vets said video games provided them with a “healthy outlet for stress and anxiety.” “And not surprisingly, ‘Call of Duty’ is their favorite game,” Goldenberg says of the study’s findings.

    “When I’ve talked to friends who’ve been forward, when I’ve gone forward, you would think, and people from outside will say, ‘Don’t you get enough of the military thing?’ And no, it’s like a great way for them — especially when we were in active combat, people would come back to the forward operating bases, and they use it to decompress and have fun,” Goldenberg says.
    #how #call #duty #getting #more
    How ‘Call of Duty’ Is Getting More Veterans Jobs Than the U.S. Government
    As Memorial Day approaches and National Military Appreciation Month comes to a close, here’s a timely fact: the largest private funder of veteran employment in the United States is a video game. Tied to Activision’s long-running military game franchise “Call of Duty,” the aptly named Call of Duty Endowmenthas placed over 150,000 veterans in jobs since 2009 and has been surpassing the federal government’s placement efforts since 2022, according to the organization’s president, Dan Goldenberg. Related Stories The initiative has raised million through sales of special accessory packs in “Call of Duty” games alone, in addition to other donation streams, and “every cent of which is going to putting vets in jobs,” Goldenberg says. Popular on Variety “The ‘Call of Duty’ community has been generous. Activision, as partners, have been incredible. They’ve all kind of come together in this ecosystem,” Goldenberg told Variety. “And one thing I know for sure is we’ve had more measurable social impact than anyone I know of in the gaming industry. I can’t think of another cause where it’s not so much the money raised, it’s the impact out. Others may have raised more money, but we’ve put — including the in-game stuff and other donations and corporate partnerships — close to million against this problem. And as a result, 150,000 vets have jobs, their families are more secure. Meaningful employment is just so core to so many other challenges a vet may encounter. If you have a meaningful job, you probably have health care, you have colleagues, you have purpose.” According to C.O.D.E., it costs per placement of each vet. The average starting salary for vets in these placements is and 93% are receiving full-time placement. Goldenberg says the program has seen an 89% retention rate at six months. Additionally, 20% of the program’s veterans placed are women. Launched in 2009 by former Activision chief Bobby Kotick and co-chaired by General James L. Jones beginning in 2012, the Call of Duty Endowment started out a time when the unemployment rate for veterans “was super high,” Goldenberg said. “It stemmed from this very successful gaming franchise that said, ‘We’ve gotten really big, and we owe a lot of our success to the people who inspired us. We’d like to find a good way to give back to them,'” Goldenberg said, adding that “initially, we looked like a lot of corporate foundations writing big checks. But the difference was the discipline that had made Activision and ‘Call of Duty’ so successful was being applied to trying to solve a social problem here.” C.O.D.E. is currently bracing for a higher number of unemployed veterans amid the recent job cuts across government service, a popular sector for vet placement, under the administration of President Donald Trump. But Goldenberg says the techniques the endowment already has in place — methods it has been building on through years of trial and error — will help significantly with this influx. “A lot of it was vetting our partners, and we insisted on a return on our investment,” Goldenberg said. “The difference was, it was a social return. We wanted to see a lot of vets put in jobs. And when we started, we were at parity. Our cost per placement was about the same as the federal government’s efforts.” And with “consistent disciplined vetting and accountability of our grantees on a quarterly basis,” Goldenberg says the Endowment has pulled ahead. “It works. So last year, we placed vets in jobs for 1/15th the cost of placement of the government with much higher quality outcomes in terms of average starting salary, retention rates, and the percentage of those jobs that are for full-time employment,” Goldenberg said. “And I guess the big lesson out of it is the discipline of business can really make a big difference for social cost. That’s been our unequivocal experience. We didn’t go in for brands. We looked for nonprofit partners who we thought for the dollar could accomplish the most social impact, and that’s what we’ve gotten.” As for how the actual “Call of Duty” video games can help vets, a study done by the Entertainment Software Association found that 86% of surveyed U.S. vets said video games provided them with a “healthy outlet for stress and anxiety.” “And not surprisingly, ‘Call of Duty’ is their favorite game,” Goldenberg says of the study’s findings. “When I’ve talked to friends who’ve been forward, when I’ve gone forward, you would think, and people from outside will say, ‘Don’t you get enough of the military thing?’ And no, it’s like a great way for them — especially when we were in active combat, people would come back to the forward operating bases, and they use it to decompress and have fun,” Goldenberg says. #how #call #duty #getting #more
    VARIETY.COM
    How ‘Call of Duty’ Is Getting More Veterans Jobs Than the U.S. Government
    As Memorial Day approaches and National Military Appreciation Month comes to a close, here’s a timely fact: the largest private funder of veteran employment in the United States is a video game. Tied to Activision’s long-running military game franchise “Call of Duty,” the aptly named Call of Duty Endowment (C.O.D.E.) has placed over 150,000 veterans in jobs since 2009 and has been surpassing the federal government’s placement efforts since 2022, according to the organization’s president, Dan Goldenberg. Related Stories The initiative has raised $48 million through sales of special accessory packs in “Call of Duty” games alone (one of which recently launched in collaboration with real-life vets First Sergeant Korey Staley and Captain Florent “Flo” Groberg), in addition to other donation streams, and “every cent of which is going to putting vets in jobs,” Goldenberg says. Popular on Variety “The ‘Call of Duty’ community has been generous. Activision, as partners, have been incredible. They’ve all kind of come together in this ecosystem,” Goldenberg told Variety. “And one thing I know for sure is we’ve had more measurable social impact than anyone I know of in the gaming industry. I can’t think of another cause where it’s not so much the money raised, it’s the impact out. Others may have raised more money, but we’ve put — including the in-game stuff and other donations and corporate partnerships — close to $100 million against this problem. And as a result, 150,000 vets have jobs, their families are more secure. Meaningful employment is just so core to so many other challenges a vet may encounter. If you have a meaningful job, you probably have health care, you have colleagues, you have purpose.” According to C.O.D.E., it costs $628 per placement of each vet. The average starting salary for vets in these placements is $75,000, and 93% are receiving full-time placement. Goldenberg says the program has seen an 89% retention rate at six months. Additionally, 20% of the program’s veterans placed are women. Launched in 2009 by former Activision chief Bobby Kotick and co-chaired by General James L. Jones beginning in 2012, the Call of Duty Endowment started out a time when the unemployment rate for veterans “was super high,” Goldenberg said. “It stemmed from this very successful gaming franchise that said, ‘We’ve gotten really big, and we owe a lot of our success to the people who inspired us. We’d like to find a good way to give back to them,'” Goldenberg said, adding that “initially, we looked like a lot of corporate foundations writing big checks. But the difference was the discipline that had made Activision and ‘Call of Duty’ so successful was being applied to trying to solve a social problem here.” C.O.D.E. is currently bracing for a higher number of unemployed veterans amid the recent job cuts across government service, a popular sector for vet placement, under the administration of President Donald Trump. But Goldenberg says the techniques the endowment already has in place — methods it has been building on through years of trial and error — will help significantly with this influx. “A lot of it was vetting our partners, and we insisted on a return on our investment,” Goldenberg said. “The difference was, it was a social return. We wanted to see a lot of vets put in jobs. And when we started, we were at parity. Our cost per placement was about the same as the federal government’s efforts.” And with “consistent disciplined vetting and accountability of our grantees on a quarterly basis,” Goldenberg says the Endowment has pulled ahead. “It works. So last year, we placed vets in jobs for 1/15th the cost of placement of the government with much higher quality outcomes in terms of average starting salary, retention rates, and the percentage of those jobs that are for full-time employment,” Goldenberg said. “And I guess the big lesson out of it is the discipline of business can really make a big difference for social cost. That’s been our unequivocal experience. We didn’t go in for brands. We looked for nonprofit partners who we thought for the dollar could accomplish the most social impact, and that’s what we’ve gotten.” As for how the actual “Call of Duty” video games can help vets, a study done by the Entertainment Software Association found that 86% of surveyed U.S. vets said video games provided them with a “healthy outlet for stress and anxiety.” “And not surprisingly, ‘Call of Duty’ is their favorite game,” Goldenberg says of the study’s findings. “When I’ve talked to friends who’ve been forward, when I’ve gone forward, you would think, and people from outside will say, ‘Don’t you get enough of the military thing?’ And no, it’s like a great way for them — especially when we were in active combat, people would come back to the forward operating bases, and they use it to decompress and have fun,” Goldenberg says.
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos 0 Anterior
  • April Architecture Billings Index reports another month of decline

    In its April Architecture Billings Index, the AIA shared that billings have dropped “in 28 out of the past 31 months.” This last month was no exception: April reported a score of 43.2, a decrease from March’s 44.1—any number below 50 indicates a decrease in billings from the previous month.

    Uncertain economic conditions have undoubtedly contributed to these latest declines, something that AIA Chief Economist Kermit Baker remarked on a statement, included in this month’s report. “Uncertainty as to the economic outlook continues to hold back progress on new construction projects,” Baker said.
    Baker remained optimistic, however, sharing that firms seem to be retaining staff and continuing to have steady work on their plates. “Despite the slowdown in billing activity, architecture firms continue to navigate this business cycle quite effectively, as staffing at firms remains relatively stable and project backlogs are holding up better than expected,” he added.

    The AIA included “resources to help architects successfully navigate an uncertain economy” in its April report. It shared past ABI data, the AIA Consensus Construction Forecast, the AIA Business of Architecture Firm Survey Report, and other relevant industry data.
    In addition to the national ABI, the index for new project inquiries and the value of design contracts also continues to dip with each passing month.
    Regionally, all parts of the country are reporting drops in billings, with the Northeast still the lowest at 40.2. The South remains the region with the lowest rate of decline, and highest score, reporting 46.2 for April, a drop from March’s 48.3. Firms specializing in more than one typology seem to be faring the best in terms of declined billings, with a score of 47.6 for April.
    It remains a waiting game to see how the economy will go on. At its meeting last month, the Federal Reserve opted again to leave interest rates be, presumably to see what happens as the tariffs take hold, and unemployment remains relatively low.
    #april #architecture #billings #index #reports
    April Architecture Billings Index reports another month of decline
    In its April Architecture Billings Index, the AIA shared that billings have dropped “in 28 out of the past 31 months.” This last month was no exception: April reported a score of 43.2, a decrease from March’s 44.1—any number below 50 indicates a decrease in billings from the previous month. Uncertain economic conditions have undoubtedly contributed to these latest declines, something that AIA Chief Economist Kermit Baker remarked on a statement, included in this month’s report. “Uncertainty as to the economic outlook continues to hold back progress on new construction projects,” Baker said. Baker remained optimistic, however, sharing that firms seem to be retaining staff and continuing to have steady work on their plates. “Despite the slowdown in billing activity, architecture firms continue to navigate this business cycle quite effectively, as staffing at firms remains relatively stable and project backlogs are holding up better than expected,” he added. The AIA included “resources to help architects successfully navigate an uncertain economy” in its April report. It shared past ABI data, the AIA Consensus Construction Forecast, the AIA Business of Architecture Firm Survey Report, and other relevant industry data. In addition to the national ABI, the index for new project inquiries and the value of design contracts also continues to dip with each passing month. Regionally, all parts of the country are reporting drops in billings, with the Northeast still the lowest at 40.2. The South remains the region with the lowest rate of decline, and highest score, reporting 46.2 for April, a drop from March’s 48.3. Firms specializing in more than one typology seem to be faring the best in terms of declined billings, with a score of 47.6 for April. It remains a waiting game to see how the economy will go on. At its meeting last month, the Federal Reserve opted again to leave interest rates be, presumably to see what happens as the tariffs take hold, and unemployment remains relatively low. #april #architecture #billings #index #reports
    April Architecture Billings Index reports another month of decline
    In its April Architecture Billings Index (ABI), the AIA shared that billings have dropped “in 28 out of the past 31 months.” This last month was no exception: April reported a score of 43.2, a decrease from March’s 44.1—any number below 50 indicates a decrease in billings from the previous month. Uncertain economic conditions have undoubtedly contributed to these latest declines, something that AIA Chief Economist Kermit Baker remarked on a statement, included in this month’s report. “Uncertainty as to the economic outlook continues to hold back progress on new construction projects,” Baker said. Baker remained optimistic, however, sharing that firms seem to be retaining staff and continuing to have steady work on their plates. “Despite the slowdown in billing activity, architecture firms continue to navigate this business cycle quite effectively, as staffing at firms remains relatively stable and project backlogs are holding up better than expected,” he added. The AIA included “resources to help architects successfully navigate an uncertain economy” in its April report. It shared past ABI data, the AIA Consensus Construction Forecast, the AIA Business of Architecture Firm Survey Report, and other relevant industry data. In addition to the national ABI, the index for new project inquiries and the value of design contracts also continues to dip with each passing month. Regionally, all parts of the country are reporting drops in billings, with the Northeast still the lowest at 40.2. The South remains the region with the lowest rate of decline, and highest score, reporting 46.2 for April, a drop from March’s 48.3. Firms specializing in more than one typology seem to be faring the best in terms of declined billings, with a score of 47.6 for April. It remains a waiting game to see how the economy will go on. At its meeting last month, the Federal Reserve opted again to leave interest rates be, presumably to see what happens as the tariffs take hold, and unemployment remains relatively low.
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos 0 Anterior
  • 702 S Bentonville ARUS Property Value and Market Trends in 2025

    Posted on : May 21, 2025

    By

    Tech World Times

    Real Estate 

    Rate this post

    Bentonville, Arkansas is growing fast. People are moving in. Businesses are expanding. Property values are rising. One property getting attention is 702 S Bentonville ARUS. In this article, we will explore its value and market trends in 2025.
    About Bentonville, Arkansas
    Bentonville is home to Walmart’s headquarters. This attracts businesses and job seekers. The city has good schools and public parks. It also has modern shopping and dining. All these factors make Bentonville a great place to live.
    Why 702 S Bentonville ARUS Is Special
    702 S Bentonville ARUS is located in a prime area. It is close to downtown. It has easy access to highways. Schools and stores are nearby. Many people want to live in this area. This property sits in a family-friendly neighborhood. The area is clean and safe. It offers both comfort and convenience.
    Property Value in 2025
    The housing market in Bentonville will be strong in 2025. Prices have gone up. Demand is still rising. The value of 702 S Bentonville ARUS has increased this year. In 2023, homes in the area sold for about In 2024, the average price rose to In 2025, the price reached nearly Experts believe values will keep going up.
    What Increases the Property Value
    Several things raise home values at 702 S Bentonville ARUS:

    Location
    It is close to work, school, and shops. Location is always key in real estate.
    New Developments Nearby
    New parks, trails, and shopping centers are being built. This adds to the area’s value.
    Safe Community
    People feel secure here. Safety matters to buyers.
    Good Schools
    Families move to places with strong school districts.
    Local Job Market
    Bentonville has low unemployment. Good jobs increase housing demand.

    Real Estate Trends in Bentonville
    Let’s look at the overall market trends:

    Rising Home Prices
    Prices have gone up by 8% in the last year.
    Low Inventory
    There are not many homes for sale. Fewer homes increase competition.
    Fast Sales
    Homes sell quickly—often within 10 to 15 days.
    Investor Interest
    Many investors are buying homes to rent out. They see good returns.
    High Rental Demand
    More people want to rent. That increases home prices and rental income.

    What’s Happening Around 702 S Bentonville ARUS
    The area around 702 S Bentonville ARUS is changing. New buildings and roads are coming. Bike paths and walking trails are expanding. A new shopping plaza is under construction. All this adds value to nearby homes. Local schools have also received higher ratings. Families are showing more interest in moving here.
    Is Now a Good Time to Buy?
    Yes. Experts say it is still a good time to buy. Even though prices are rising, Bentonville is affordable. Compared to cities like Dallas or Denver, it offers more value. Plus, the market is expected to stay strong for years.
    Buyers should act soon. Waiting could mean paying more later. That’s especially true for homes like 702 S Bentonville ARUS in hot areas.
    Is It a Good Time to Sell?
    Yes, it is also a good time to sell. Many people are looking for homes. Homes sell quickly and often at a high price. Sellers can make a good profit. Sellers at 702 S Bentonville ARUS can expect strong offers. Most homes in this area sell above the asking price.
    Rental Market in 2025
    Some buyers want to rent their homes. Bentonville is great for that. The city has many renters. Rent for a 3-bedroom home is about –per month in 2025. Homes like 702 S Bentonville ARUS are popular among renters. The location and size make it a top pick.
    What Should Buyers Look For?
    If you want to buy in Bentonville, look for:

    Location close to downtown
    Homes with updated kitchens and bathrooms
    Energy-efficient windows and appliances
    Safe neighborhoods
    Homes near parks and schools

    702 S Bentonville ARUS checks many of these boxes.
    What About Property Taxes?
    Property taxes in Bentonville are moderate. They are lower than in many other states. In 2025, taxes on homes like 702 S Bentonville ARUS are around per year. This helps make the home more affordable.
    Expert Opinions
    Real estate agents in Bentonville agree on one thing. Homes in this area will keep growing in value. New buyers and investors are entering the market every month. The trend looks strong for the next 3–5 years.
    Final Thoughts
    Bentonville is growing fast. Property values are climbing. The real estate market is strong. If you are thinking about buying or selling a home, now is a great time. 702 S Bentonville ARUS stands out as a great example. It is well-located, in a strong market, and has growing value. Whether you are a buyer, seller, or investor, this property has great potential. Keep an eye on the trends. Watch the development around the area. And act quickly—homes here don’t stay on the market for long.
    Tech World TimesTech World Times, a global collective focusing on the latest tech news and trends in blockchain, Fintech, Development & Testing, AI and Startups. If you are looking for the guest post then contact at techworldtimes@gmail.com
    #bentonville #arus #property #value #market
    702 S Bentonville ARUS Property Value and Market Trends in 2025
    Posted on : May 21, 2025 By Tech World Times Real Estate  Rate this post Bentonville, Arkansas is growing fast. People are moving in. Businesses are expanding. Property values are rising. One property getting attention is 702 S Bentonville ARUS. In this article, we will explore its value and market trends in 2025. About Bentonville, Arkansas Bentonville is home to Walmart’s headquarters. This attracts businesses and job seekers. The city has good schools and public parks. It also has modern shopping and dining. All these factors make Bentonville a great place to live. Why 702 S Bentonville ARUS Is Special 702 S Bentonville ARUS is located in a prime area. It is close to downtown. It has easy access to highways. Schools and stores are nearby. Many people want to live in this area. This property sits in a family-friendly neighborhood. The area is clean and safe. It offers both comfort and convenience. Property Value in 2025 The housing market in Bentonville will be strong in 2025. Prices have gone up. Demand is still rising. The value of 702 S Bentonville ARUS has increased this year. In 2023, homes in the area sold for about In 2024, the average price rose to In 2025, the price reached nearly Experts believe values will keep going up. What Increases the Property Value Several things raise home values at 702 S Bentonville ARUS: Location It is close to work, school, and shops. Location is always key in real estate. New Developments Nearby New parks, trails, and shopping centers are being built. This adds to the area’s value. Safe Community People feel secure here. Safety matters to buyers. Good Schools Families move to places with strong school districts. Local Job Market Bentonville has low unemployment. Good jobs increase housing demand. Real Estate Trends in Bentonville Let’s look at the overall market trends: Rising Home Prices Prices have gone up by 8% in the last year. Low Inventory There are not many homes for sale. Fewer homes increase competition. Fast Sales Homes sell quickly—often within 10 to 15 days. Investor Interest Many investors are buying homes to rent out. They see good returns. High Rental Demand More people want to rent. That increases home prices and rental income. What’s Happening Around 702 S Bentonville ARUS The area around 702 S Bentonville ARUS is changing. New buildings and roads are coming. Bike paths and walking trails are expanding. A new shopping plaza is under construction. All this adds value to nearby homes. Local schools have also received higher ratings. Families are showing more interest in moving here. Is Now a Good Time to Buy? Yes. Experts say it is still a good time to buy. Even though prices are rising, Bentonville is affordable. Compared to cities like Dallas or Denver, it offers more value. Plus, the market is expected to stay strong for years. Buyers should act soon. Waiting could mean paying more later. That’s especially true for homes like 702 S Bentonville ARUS in hot areas. Is It a Good Time to Sell? Yes, it is also a good time to sell. Many people are looking for homes. Homes sell quickly and often at a high price. Sellers can make a good profit. Sellers at 702 S Bentonville ARUS can expect strong offers. Most homes in this area sell above the asking price. Rental Market in 2025 Some buyers want to rent their homes. Bentonville is great for that. The city has many renters. Rent for a 3-bedroom home is about –per month in 2025. Homes like 702 S Bentonville ARUS are popular among renters. The location and size make it a top pick. What Should Buyers Look For? If you want to buy in Bentonville, look for: Location close to downtown Homes with updated kitchens and bathrooms Energy-efficient windows and appliances Safe neighborhoods Homes near parks and schools 702 S Bentonville ARUS checks many of these boxes. What About Property Taxes? Property taxes in Bentonville are moderate. They are lower than in many other states. In 2025, taxes on homes like 702 S Bentonville ARUS are around per year. This helps make the home more affordable. Expert Opinions Real estate agents in Bentonville agree on one thing. Homes in this area will keep growing in value. New buyers and investors are entering the market every month. The trend looks strong for the next 3–5 years. Final Thoughts Bentonville is growing fast. Property values are climbing. The real estate market is strong. If you are thinking about buying or selling a home, now is a great time. 702 S Bentonville ARUS stands out as a great example. It is well-located, in a strong market, and has growing value. Whether you are a buyer, seller, or investor, this property has great potential. Keep an eye on the trends. Watch the development around the area. And act quickly—homes here don’t stay on the market for long. Tech World TimesTech World Times, a global collective focusing on the latest tech news and trends in blockchain, Fintech, Development & Testing, AI and Startups. If you are looking for the guest post then contact at techworldtimes@gmail.com #bentonville #arus #property #value #market
    TECHWORLDTIMES.COM
    702 S Bentonville ARUS Property Value and Market Trends in 2025
    Posted on : May 21, 2025 By Tech World Times Real Estate  Rate this post Bentonville, Arkansas is growing fast. People are moving in. Businesses are expanding. Property values are rising. One property getting attention is 702 S Bentonville ARUS. In this article, we will explore its value and market trends in 2025. About Bentonville, Arkansas Bentonville is home to Walmart’s headquarters. This attracts businesses and job seekers. The city has good schools and public parks. It also has modern shopping and dining. All these factors make Bentonville a great place to live. Why 702 S Bentonville ARUS Is Special 702 S Bentonville ARUS is located in a prime area. It is close to downtown. It has easy access to highways. Schools and stores are nearby. Many people want to live in this area. This property sits in a family-friendly neighborhood. The area is clean and safe. It offers both comfort and convenience. Property Value in 2025 The housing market in Bentonville will be strong in 2025. Prices have gone up. Demand is still rising. The value of 702 S Bentonville ARUS has increased this year. In 2023, homes in the area sold for about $280,000. In 2024, the average price rose to $310,000. In 2025, the price reached nearly $340,000. Experts believe values will keep going up. What Increases the Property Value Several things raise home values at 702 S Bentonville ARUS: Location It is close to work, school, and shops. Location is always key in real estate. New Developments Nearby New parks, trails, and shopping centers are being built. This adds to the area’s value. Safe Community People feel secure here. Safety matters to buyers. Good Schools Families move to places with strong school districts. Local Job Market Bentonville has low unemployment. Good jobs increase housing demand. Real Estate Trends in Bentonville Let’s look at the overall market trends: Rising Home Prices Prices have gone up by 8% in the last year. Low Inventory There are not many homes for sale. Fewer homes increase competition. Fast Sales Homes sell quickly—often within 10 to 15 days. Investor Interest Many investors are buying homes to rent out. They see good returns. High Rental Demand More people want to rent. That increases home prices and rental income. What’s Happening Around 702 S Bentonville ARUS The area around 702 S Bentonville ARUS is changing. New buildings and roads are coming. Bike paths and walking trails are expanding. A new shopping plaza is under construction. All this adds value to nearby homes. Local schools have also received higher ratings. Families are showing more interest in moving here. Is Now a Good Time to Buy? Yes. Experts say it is still a good time to buy. Even though prices are rising, Bentonville is affordable. Compared to cities like Dallas or Denver, it offers more value. Plus, the market is expected to stay strong for years. Buyers should act soon. Waiting could mean paying more later. That’s especially true for homes like 702 S Bentonville ARUS in hot areas. Is It a Good Time to Sell? Yes, it is also a good time to sell. Many people are looking for homes. Homes sell quickly and often at a high price. Sellers can make a good profit. Sellers at 702 S Bentonville ARUS can expect strong offers. Most homes in this area sell above the asking price. Rental Market in 2025 Some buyers want to rent their homes. Bentonville is great for that. The city has many renters. Rent for a 3-bedroom home is about $1,800–$2,200 per month in 2025. Homes like 702 S Bentonville ARUS are popular among renters. The location and size make it a top pick. What Should Buyers Look For? If you want to buy in Bentonville, look for: Location close to downtown Homes with updated kitchens and bathrooms Energy-efficient windows and appliances Safe neighborhoods Homes near parks and schools 702 S Bentonville ARUS checks many of these boxes. What About Property Taxes? Property taxes in Bentonville are moderate. They are lower than in many other states. In 2025, taxes on homes like 702 S Bentonville ARUS are around $2,000 per year. This helps make the home more affordable. Expert Opinions Real estate agents in Bentonville agree on one thing. Homes in this area will keep growing in value. New buyers and investors are entering the market every month. The trend looks strong for the next 3–5 years. Final Thoughts Bentonville is growing fast. Property values are climbing. The real estate market is strong. If you are thinking about buying or selling a home, now is a great time. 702 S Bentonville ARUS stands out as a great example. It is well-located, in a strong market, and has growing value. Whether you are a buyer, seller, or investor, this property has great potential. Keep an eye on the trends. Watch the development around the area. And act quickly—homes here don’t stay on the market for long. Tech World TimesTech World Times (TWT), a global collective focusing on the latest tech news and trends in blockchain, Fintech, Development & Testing, AI and Startups. If you are looking for the guest post then contact at techworldtimes@gmail.com
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos 0 Anterior
CGShares https://cgshares.com