you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 20 points 1 year ago (12 children)

Why aren’t they building these things underground or repurposing old mines in areas where geothermal is plentiful for power and aquifers are stable, instead of in water-poor, temperature extreme places like Texas and KY? …Oh right, poverty and red voters. Better to exploit and damage then have some upfront cost and long-term stability. I forget.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Building anything like this is seen as a jobs creator. Data center companies then pass the proposal around to municipalities and ask them who want jobs. These places then bend over backwards to offer tax incentives, fast permitting, etc. with no regard to whether their location can actually support the building.

    So of course they get built in the most corrupt places.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

    Yep most local governments will give tens of millions away for "local jobs" even if there's only like 3 local jobs.

    Could literally just hand those 3 people 4 million each, and save the environmental disaster.

    Literally dealing with that in my own local community. They want to build an outdoor concrete batch plant in the middle of downtown to create like 10 jobs. I mean you'll make the small city into a ghost town. Shut down the multi-million dollar observatory, all the small business down restaurants. Not to mention they will cause everyone wealthy enough to move out of town. This will leave the poorest residents left in the tax base but hey they're creating jobs!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    It's not just jobs as in the physical bodies that are going in to work at the place, it's also the taxes and the net expansion of the local economy (eg, the people working there will be spending money at local restaurants and businesses, the facility will be paying for utilities, and so forth). It's a complicated thing to evaluate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It's not complicated when you factor in that tax payers are paying for the incentives. And they rarely work out for the local residents.

    When Amazon was flirting with building their second headquarters for AWS, a small number of cities tried to band together and require a floor amount for reinvestment into the city. Amazon, being one of the richest companies in the world, said, "Nah...well just cancel the building."

    These companies want to socialize the cost of their buildings but privatize the profits those buildings create.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Was this concrete batch plant being built by one of the richest companies in the world?

    If this was the case for literally every project, then every project would cause cities to lose money and I have no idea how cities could still exist.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    The jobs in question are highly specialised and would be entrusted to existing employees only though

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Yeah, chances are Jim Bob and Jolene aren't going to get an entry level job at a data center. They don't need many janitors or lunch ladies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)