## The surprising way some states are trying to boost their economies: Paying people to move there
For years, cities and states have competed for businesses with tax breaks and incentives.But a growing number are now trying something different: paying *people* to move there.
From rural towns in Kansas to entire states like Vermont and West Virginia, programs offering financial incentives to new residents are popping up.The goal? To combat population decline, fill labor shortages, and revitalize local economies.
These programs vary widely. Some offer a lump sum payment, like the $10,000 offered by Tulsa, Oklahoma, to remote workers. Others provide assistance with housing, student loan repayment, or childcare. Still others offer smaller, but consistent, stipends over a period of years.
The idea isn’t entirely new. Historically, governments have incentivized settlement in frontier areas. But the current wave is driven by different forces – a changing workforce, the rise of remote work, and the realization that attracting people can be just as crucial as attracting businesses.
“We’re seeing a real shift in economic advancement thinking,” says Kenny McDonald, president of the Community Development foundation of Tulsa. “It’s not just about chasing the next big factory. It’s about building a community that people want to live in.”
But do these programs actually work? Early results are mixed. Some programs have seen a significant influx of applicants and new residents. Others have struggled to attract enough people or retain them long-term.
One challenge is affordability. Even with financial incentives, the cost of living in some areas can be prohibitive. Another is the need to create a welcoming and supportive community for newcomers.
“Money is helpful, but it’s not everything,” says Liz Emerson, a researcher at the Brookings Institution. “people want to move to places where they feel like they can build a life, where there are opportunities for their families, and where they feel connected to the community.”
Despite the challenges,the trend is likely to continue. as more and more people embrace remote work and seek a better quality of life, states and cities will need to get creative to attract and retain talent. paying people to move may just be the start of a new era in economic development.
Trump Administration to Challenge State AI laws with executive Order
Table of Contents
- Trump Administration to Challenge State AI laws with executive Order
- Debate Erupts over Federal Authority to Regulate AI, Perhaps Overriding State Laws
- The Biden administration’s Proposed Executive Order
- The Legal Argument for Federal Preemption
- Legal Challenges and State Authority
- Key Takeaways
- Looking Ahead
President Trump signed an executive order on Thursday aiming to challenge state laws regulating the artificial intelligence industry. The order directs the Justice Department to establish an “AI Litigation Task Force” to sue states over their AI-related laws. it also instructs the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission to collaborate with the DOJ to circumvent what the White House deems “onerous” state and local regulations, aligning with the administration’s AI action plan.
Furthermore,the order directs Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to investigate the possibility of withholding federal rural broadband funding from states with unfavorable AI laws.
“We have to be unified,” stated Trump, drawing a comparison to China’s centralized decision-making process under President Xi. “China is unified as they have one vote… He says do it, and that’s the end of that.”
David Sacks, Trump’s AI advisor and a venture capitalist, clarified that the administration won’t oppose all state laws, specifically emphasizing continued support for “kid safety” measures. However, they intend to “push back on the most onerous examples of state regulations.”
Tech policy researchers anticipate legal challenges to the executive order, arguing that the Trump administration lacks the authority to restrict state regulation without Congressional legislation. The order also tasks Sacks with collaborating with Congress to draft potential legislation.
The executive order has faced criticism, even from some of Trump’s supporters, including organizations involved in bipartisan efforts to protect children from AI-related harms.
“This is a huge lost possibility by the Trump administration to lead the Republican Party into a broadly consultative process,” said Michael Toscano, director of the [organization name – missing from original text].
A debate is brewing over the extent of the federal government’s power to regulate artificial intelligence (AI), with some arguing a forthcoming executive order from the Biden administration may attempt to preempt state-level AI laws. The core of the dispute centers on whether the federal government can leverage its authority over interstate commerce to override state regulations in this rapidly evolving technological landscape. Legal experts are divided on the validity of this approach, with concerns raised about potential overreach and established legal precedent.
The Biden administration’s Proposed Executive Order
The Biden administration is preparing an executive order on AI, aiming to address risks and harness the technology’s potential.According to a Truth Social post from former President Trump, the order could involve federal preemption of state AI laws, suggesting “Congress could, theoretically, preempt states through legislation.” florida Governor Ron DeSantis has also recently proposed a series of AI-related measures,setting the stage for potential conflicts between state and federal regulations.
The Legal Argument for Federal Preemption
Some proponents of federal oversight argue that the federal government’s power to regulate interstate commerce – as outlined in the U.S. Constitution – provides a basis for overriding state AI laws. David Sacks, a venture capitalist, suggested on X (formerly Twitter) that this commerce clause authority justifies federal intervention. The argument posits that AI systems frequently enough operate across state lines, impacting interstate commerce and thus falling under federal jurisdiction.
However, this argument faces significant legal challenges. John Bergmayer, legal director of the nonprofit advocacy group Public Knowledge, believes the executive order attempts to circumvent Congress and that the legal basis for preemption is weak. “They’re trying to find a way to bypass Congress with these various theories in the executive order. legally, I don’t think they work very well,” Bergmayer stated.
Bergmayer points out that states have a long-established right to regulate interstate commerce, and a recent Supreme Court decision reinforces this principle. In National Pork Producers Council v.California (2023), the Supreme court upheld California’s law regulating pork production, even though it impacted farmers in other states. This ruling affirmed that states can enact regulations affecting interstate commerce, even if those regulations create burdens on businesses outside their borders, as long as the regulations are not discriminatory.
Key Takeaways
* Federal vs. State Authority: The debate centers on whether the federal government can use its power over interstate commerce to preempt state AI laws.
* Commerce Clause: Proponents of federal preemption cite the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution as justification.
* Supreme Court Precedent: A recent Supreme Court case (National Pork Producers Council v. California) supports states’ rights to regulate interstate commerce.
* Executive Order Concerns: Legal experts question the legality of using an executive order to bypass Congress and preempt state laws.
Looking Ahead
The upcoming executive order on AI is likely to intensify this debate. The extent to which the federal government attempts to preempt state laws will likely face legal challenges, potentially leading to further clarification from the courts regarding the balance of power between federal and state governments in regulating AI.The National Pork Producers Council v. California decision suggests that states retain significant authority in this area, but the unique characteristics of AI and its impact on interstate commerce may lead to novel legal arguments and interpretations.